•i 


ff 


Js  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 


Plea  for  t!)e  jflegatfte 


BY 


EDWARD    TAYLOR 


Industry  makes  to  Legislation  the  modest  request  of  Diogenes  to  Alexander: 
"  Stand  out  of  my  sunshine."  —  Bentfitim 


CHICAGO 
A.    C.    McCLURG  AND    COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT, 
BY  A.  C.  MCCLURG  AND  COMPANY, 

A.D.    1888. 


PREFACE. 


O  one  who  has  been  observant  enough  to 
note  the  trend  of  public  sentiment  in  this 
country  can  fail  to  see  that  the  tariff 
question  is  coming  to  the  front.  For 
more  than  twenty  years  our  national  politics  have 
looked  toward  the  past,  and  not  toward  the  future. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  name  a  prominent  question 
upon  which  the  parties,  as  parties,  have  made  a 
direct  issue.  The  pretended  issues  grew  out  of  or 
survived  the  Rebellion ;  the  real  contest  arose  from 
the  earnest  desire  of  the  parties  out  of  power  to  get 
in,  and  the  equally  strong  desire  of  the  party  in 
power  to  stay  in,  — "  the  one  striving  to  rout  the 
outs,  and  the  others  to  oust  the  ins." 

But  the  country  may  now  indulge  in  the  belief 
that  the  issues  of  war-time  are  no  longer  dominant, 
but  have  passed  into  history.  We  have  fallen  upon 
better  years,  when  in  our  campaigns  arguments 
upon  economic,  political,  and  moral  questions  are 
likely  to  take  the  place  of  the  old-time  appeals  to 
local  prejudices  and  sectional  animosities. 


IV  PREFACE. 

In  this  betterment  of  our  political  affairs  the  ques- 
tion of  the  tariff  is  to  be  prominent.  It  has  been  a 
lively  question  in  our  past  history,  and  it  is  likely 
to  remain  with  us  as  an  issue  for  yet  many  a  year. 
It  is  a  question  upon  which  every  citizen,  and  espe- 
cially every  voter,  should  have  an  intelligent  and 
emphatic  opinion.  The  difficulties  should  not  appall, 
since  they  are  far  more  imaginary  than  real.  At 
the  close  of  a  day  of  discussion  on  the  appointment 
of  the  Tariff  Commission,  a  member  of  Congress 
petulantly  remarked,  "  I  don't  understand  the  tariff 
question,  and  I  shall  not  try  to  understand  it."  This 
hopeless  avowal  of  ignorance  is  unworthy  even  a 
private  voter,  and  it  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  lay  the 
professed  statesman  upon  the  political  shelf  so  high 
that  no  campaign  step-ladder  will  ever  reach  him 
again. 

It  should  be  kept  in  view  that  the  present  issue  is 
not  between  direct  and  indirect  taxation.  Such  a 
question  may  arise  in  the  future.  Absolute  free 
trade  is  not  now  contended  for  by  any  considerable 
number  of  our  people.  The  living  contest  lies  be- 
tween revenue-tariff  advocates  and  free-traders  — 
as  they  are  interchangeably  termed  in  the  rather 
loose  speech  of  the  times  —  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  advocates  of  a  protective  tariff  as  an  ultimate 
fiscal  policy  on  the  other  side.  The  argument 
here  presented  is  confined  to  this  purpose  and 
scope. 

While  yet  a  young  man  in  college  I  was  much 
impressed  with  the  beauty  and  harmony  of  eco- 
nomic laws  as  they  were  reflected  from  the  pages  of 


PREFACE.  V 

our  text-book,  written  by  an  honored  American,  Pro- 
fessor John  Bascom,  late  President  of  the  University 
of  Wisconsin.  A  somewhat  careful  inquiry  during 
the  succeeding  years  into  the  subject  of  national 
revenues  and  the  effect  of  commercial  legislation 
has  brought  the  mature  conviction  that  "  protec- 
tion "  is  the  most  pronounced  misnomer  of  the 
age.  This  volume  springs  from  a  desire  that  others 
should  perceive  and  hold  this  now  vital  truth.  I 
have  written  for  the  average  citizen  who  cares  to 
reflect  upon  a  public  question  which  has  always 
been  important,  and  apparently  is  soon  to  be  su- 
preme in  our  politics. 

I  have  written  as  a  student  of  economic  science, 
not  as  a  political  partisan.  All  will  agree  that  the 
question  of  industrial  freedom,  like  civil  freedom, 
ought  to  be  superior  to  the  contests  of  parties. 
The  divergence  of  opinion  relates  solely  to  meth- 
ods. On  the  issue  of  protection,  which  in  recent 
politics  has  been  but  dimly  outlined,  the  parties 
have  no  coherency,  free-traders  among  Republicans 
and  protectionists  among  Democrats  being  num- 
bered by  thousands.  The  crystallization  of  public 
opinion  into  coherent  parties  upon  the  question  will 
come  as  a  result  of  broader  knowledge  and  a  better 
realization  of  the  interests  involved. 

Many  of  the  thoughts  and  arguments  here  pre- 
sented are  original  in  form  and  substance,  but  many 
of  them  also  are  the  ideas  of  others  recast  to  suit 
the  present  purpose.  Economic  principles  are  of 
slow  growth.  Like  the  laws  of  physics  and  the 
great  inventions  in  mechanics,  they  have  become 


Vi  PREFACE. 

known  only  from  the  labors  of  many  men  and  many 
years.  All  men  build  upon  the  foundations  laid  by 
their  predecessors.  That  would  be  a  very  barren 
and  profitless  book  which  should  ignore  our  one 
hundred  years  of  tariff  history,  and  the  ideas  evolved 
by  that  wrestle  of  policies. 

Free-traders  in  this  contest,  like  Martin  Luther  in 
his,  have  nailed  their  theses  to  the  door;  and  until 
sound  argument  and  the  experience  of  the  nation 
shall  throw  upon  their  principles  at  least  a  reason- 
able doubt,  they  propose  to  avow,  advocate,  and 
defend  them.  But  no  one  may  appear  as  "  Sir 
Oracle."  Modesty  is  a  graceful  attitude  in  every 
one  who  would  approach  this  question  in  discussion. 
Much  has  been  well  said  on  both  sides,  and  the 
advocate  of  free  trade  has  something  to  beat  more 
substantial  than  the  air.  Neither  body  of  pleaders 
can  with  any  gracefulness  claim,  even  in  thought, 
to  be  the  embodiment  of  all  that  is  true ;  nor  can 
free-traders  make  to  protectionists,  any  more  than 
protectionists  can  make  to  free-traders,  the  ironical 
suggestion  of  Job  to  his  comforters,  "  No  doubt 
but  ye  are  the  people,  and  wisdom  shall  die  with 
you." 

I  can  not  speak  for  protectionists ;  but  it  has  been 
my  constant  aim  to  give  an  impartial,  though  neces- 
sarily a  brief,  statement  of  their  opinions.  The  ad- 
vocates of  the  restrictive  policy  are  mostly  honest 
men,  who  sincerely  desire  the  highest  material  pros- 
perity of  our  country.  That  they  are  mistaken,  I 
believe  and  have  tried  to  show.  Their  writers  have 
given  ample  expression  to  their  views.  They  will  not 


PREFACE.  Vli 

find  them  distorted,  I  hope,  after  passing  through  a 
free-trade  medium.  Unfairness  would  be  even  more 
fatal  to  my  purpose  than  sophistry. 

"On  all  great  questions  much  remains  to  be 
said ;  "  and  no  one  can  hope  to  settle  for  others  a 
question  like  this.  He  will  do  enough  if  he  can 
excite  thought,  provoke  inquiry,  and  stimulate  dis- 
cussion, knowing  that  conviction  comes  to  the  best 
minds  rather  from  their  own  activity  than  from  a 
passive  reception  of  other  men's  opinions. 

No  puzzling  question  of  economic  or  moral  re- 
form can  ever  be  finally  settled  or  cease  to  be  an 
issue  until  it  is  adjusted  as  it  ought  to  be  adjusted. 
Truth  is  inherently  strong,  and  it  has  within  itself 
the  germ  of  ultimate  victory.  There  is  much  fact, 
as  well  as  much  exaggeration,  in  the  epigram, 
"  Truth  survives  a  cyclone,  but  error  dies  from  a 
pin-scratch."  The  great  American  heart  always 
beats  right,  and  the  national  good  is  always,  in  the 
end,  the  net  product  of  public  agitation.  Newton's 
apple  did  not  more  naturally  and  certainly  fall  to 
the  earth  than  does  the  public  conscience  approve 
of  that  which  is  equitable  and  just,  and  condemn 
that  which  is  partial  and  oppressive. 

It  is  not  strange  to  me,  therefore,  that  those  who 
believe  in  untrammelled  commerce  and  industry  are 
a  mighty  host,  and  that  men  are  perceiving  that 
free  speech,  a  free  press,  free  schools,  a  free  ballot, 
and  a  free  church  are  no  more  the  legitimate  out- 
comes of  popular  government  than  free  trade.  I 
have  the  greatest  confidence  that  investigation  and 
thought,  with  a  fuller  knowledge,  will  lead  our 


Vlii  PREFACE. 

people  to  a  large  degree  of  unity  in  the  sentiment 
that  all  legislative  interference  with  economic  laws 
and  with  legitimate  trade  is  either  inoperative  or 
else  harmful  to  the  aggregate  prosperity  of  our 
"country 

E.  T. 
APRIL  21,  1888. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAP.  PAGE 

I.   INTRODUCTORY.  —  THE  PROBLEM n 

II.    RISE  OF  THE  TARIFF  SYSTEM  IN  EUROPE      .  21 

III.  A  LEAF  FROM  THE   HISTORY  OF  PROTECTION 

IN  ENGLAND 27 

IV.  OUTLINE  OF  TARIFF  HISTORY  IN  THE  UNITED 

STATES 35 

V.    SOME   LESSONS  FOR  THE  PRESENT  FROM  THE 

TARIFFS  OF  THE  PAST 50 

VI.   SOME  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLES  UNDERLYING  THE 

TARIFF  ISSUE 64 

VII.    Is  SCARCITY  BETTER  THAN  ABUNDANCE,  DEAR- 
NESS    THAN    CHEAPNESS,    OBSTACLES   THAN 
FACILITIES,  LABOR  THAN  LEISURE?      ...      75 
VIII.   THE  INTERESTS  OF   PRODUCERS   VERSUS  THE 

RIGHTS  OF  CONSUMERS 88 

IX.   Is  PROTECTION  THE  CAUSE  OF  OUR  PROSPERITY  ?    96 
X.   RELATION  OF  PROTECTION  TO  PRICES    .     .     .     109 
XI.   RELATION  OF  PROTECTION  TO  WAGES    .     .    .     121 
XII.   How  DOES  PROTECTION  AFFECT  OUR  FOREIGN 

TRADE? 143 


X  CONTENTS. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

XIII.  How  DOES  PROTECTION  AFFECT  OUR  SHIP- 

PING INTERESTS? 155 

XIV.  Is    THE    AMERICAN    FARMER    PROFITED    BY 

PROTECTION  ? 160 

XV.   THE  RELATION  OF  THE  LABORING  MAN  TO 

THE  PROTECTIVE  TARIFF 174 

XVI.   HOW   FAR  DOES   PROTECTION  BENEFIT  THE 

FAVORED  INDUSTRIES  ? 183 

XVII.  A  GLANCE  AT  SOME  OF  OUR  PROTECTED  IN- 
DUSTRIES     191 

XVIII.   SOME    FALLACIES    OF    THE    PROTECTIONIST 

SCHOOL 206 

XIX.   SOME  FURTHER  CONSIDERATIONS      ....    232 
XX.   PLEAS   BEFORE  THE   COMMITTEE   ON  WAYS 

AND  MEANS.  —  AN  EXTRAVAGANZA  .     .    .     249 

XXI.   THE  MORAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  ISSUE    .    .    .    262 

XXII.   CONCLUSION.  —  THE  OUTCOME 267 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 


CHAPTER   I. 

INTRODUCTORY.  —  THE   PROBLEM. 

N  all  ages  anarchy  has  been  a  dreaded  thing. 
Government  is  necessary  to  the  existence 
society,  of  business,  of  order,  —  of  civilization 
itself.  Whatever  may  be  the  theory  of  monar- 
chies, it  is  certain  that  in  the  United  States  government  is 
instituted  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  people.  That 
"governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed,"  is  a  fundamental  truth  which  has  become 
axiomatic  with  all  Americans. 

Good  government  can  not  exist  without  money; 
since  all  share  in  the  benefits  of  order,  all  should  contrib-/££T' 
ute   to  its  support.     Taxation   in  itself  is  an  evil,  and  it  ^ 

U*Jti-e4 

can  not  be  defended  unless  it  shall  bring  compensating/****^ 

benefits. 

£Vfc<H 
Taxes  are  of  two  general  kinds,  —  direct,  and  indirect.<i»vG^ 

Direct  taxes  are  levied  upon  the  real  and  personal  prop-j^1/^ 
erty  of  individuals  in  the  ratio  of  their  possessions,  the  richj^  /| 
paying  much,  the  middle  class  less,  and  the  poor  little  or* 


12  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

nothing.  This  form  of  taxation  is  the  kind  adopted  in  our 
state,  county,  and  municipal  governments.  In  fact,  the 
General  Government,  by  monopolizing  indirect  taxation,  has 
taken  away  all  option  from  the  States,  shutting  them  up  to 
the  direct  form.  It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  though  this 
form  of  taxation  is  mentioned  and  allowed  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  has  never  been  practised  to  much  extent  by  our 
General  Government.  Our  system  of  internal  revenue  is,  in 
essence,  indirect  taxation.  Except  the  levy  on  incomes, 
which  has  been  legalized  but  rarely,  and  for  specific  pur- 
poses, the  national  treasury  has  scarcely  received  a  dollar 
of  direct  tax. 

An  indirect  tax  is  levied  upon  property  with  the  expec- 
tation that  the  owner  will  pay  it  provisionally,  but  that  he 
will  indemnify  himself  on  the  sale  of  the  taxed  goods  by  the 
higher  price  which  he  shall  receive.  The  final  consumer, 
therefore,  bears  the  burden.  All  taxes  upon  goods  im- 
ported, called  "  duties,"  or  "  customs,"  are  of  this  charac- 
ter. Our  Government  derives  the  major  part  of  its  revenue 
from  this  source.  An  indirect  tax  on  goods  made  in  this 
country  is  called  an  "  excise." 

The  comparative  merits  of  direct  and  indirect  taxation 
constitute  a  great  and  very  fruitful  question  in  itself.  Much 
can  be  said  most  pertinently  on  both  sides.  But  it  is  not 
now,  nor  has  it  ever  been,  before  the  American  people.  It 
is  a  question  reserved  for  the  future.  So  far  as  can  now  be 
seen,  it  is  a  settled  policy  of  the  National  Government  to 
derive  its  revenues  from  indirect  taxation,  as  it  is  for  the 
State  Governments  to  derive  theirs  from  direct  taxation. 
There  are  weighty  reasons  why  direct  is  preferable  to  indi- 
rect taxation  as  a  means  of  raising  national  revenue.  There 
are  also  good  reasons  against  it.  But  since  it  has  never 
been  an  issue,  it  is  an  evident  evasion  of  the  question  to 
imply  —  as  protectionists  often  do  —  that  free-traders  would 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  13 

abolish  all  taxes  on  imports,  and  provide  for  the  govern- 
ment expenses  by  direct  taxation.  Not  a  voter  now  living 
in  the  United  States  has  been  called  upon  to  take  sides 
upon  the  question.  It  is  a  purely  theoretical  matter,  which 
American  politics  has  not  touched.  With  this,  the  subject 
may  be  dismissed,  as  not  relevant  to  the  present  discussion. 

A  tariff  is  a  schedule  of  taxes  on  imports.  Its  objects 
are  two  in  number,  and  hence  it  is  of  two  kinds  :  i.  A 
revenue  tariff  has  for  its  object  to  obtain  the  money  neces- 
sary to  carry  on  the  Government.  This  is  a  good  object, 
and  hence  the  rightfulness  of  a  revenue  tariff  has  been 
rarely  disputed.  2.  A  protective  tariff  is  adjusted  chiefly 
for  the  purpose  of  hindering  the  importation  of  goods  from 
foreign  countries,  so  as  to  induce  men  to  make  them  here. 
When  foreign  competition  is  thus  held  in  check,  home 
production  will  be  correspondingly  increased.  It  is  as- 
sumed that  this  will  be  the  effect,  especially  if  the  entire 
amount  of  the  tax,  or  a  considerable  part  of  it,  be  added  to 
the  price  of  the  home  products. 

A  revenue  tariff  is  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing the  largest  revenue  with  the  least  cost  to  the  people, 
and  with  no  design  of  reducing  importation ;  though  to 
some  extent  it  may  have  that  effect,  and  to  that  extent  it 
will  exclude  competition.  On  the  other  hand,  a  protective 
tariff  seeks  primarily  to  check  or  prevent  importation,  in 
order  to  favor  the  home  producer.  It  therefore  sacrifices 
revenue  in  order  to  secure  protection.  The  revenue  sys- 
tem seeks  first  to  fill  the  national  treasury;  the  protect- 
ive system  seeks  first  to  reduce  foreign  competition.  These 
systems  are  therefore  nearly  exact  opposites  of  each  other, 
though  they  are  in  harmony  in  some  of  their  effects.  They 
both  create  revenue.  They  both  may  restrict  foreign  com- 
petition, though  neither  does  so  of  necessity.  But  in  the 
former,  revenue  is  the  essence,  and  protection  the  inci- 


14  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

dent :  in  the  latter,  protection  is  the  essence,  and  revenue 
the  incident.  Protection  secures  revenue  only  because  it 
fails,  and  in  the  exact  ratio  in  which  it  fails,  to  realize  its 
primary  purpose  of  checking  imports.  On  the  other  hand, 
revenue  taxation  secures  protection  only  when  it  fails  to 
realize  its  chief  object  of  placing  money  in  the  treasury. 
If  a  man  buys  an  American-made  blanket,  the  Government 
gets  no  revenue,  but  the  home  producer  of  blankets  finds 
a  market.  If  a  man  buys  an  English-made  blanket,  he  pays 
the  Government  the  amount  of  the  import  tax,  but  he  takes 
a  sale  from  the  home  manufacturer. 

Another  difference  of  the  two  systems  is  this  :  Protection 
declares  that  the  duties  should  lie  chiefly  on  such  articles 
the  like  of  which  are  produced  in  this  country.  To  place 
taxes  on  those  not  produced  here,  would  be  wholly  without 
results  in  giving  assistance  to  domestic  industries.  Protec- 
tion cares  nothing  for  such  articles  as  tea,  coffee,  and  spices. 
On  the  other  hand,  revenue  tariff  is  laid  wholly  or  mainly 
on  such  articles  as  are  produced  abroad,  but  not  also  at 
home,  since  by  thus  placing  duties,  all  the  enhancement  of 
price  caused  by  the  tariff  goes  into  the  treasury  of  the  nation, 
and  not  into  private  pockets.  But  none  of  our  revenue 
tariffs  have  been  confined  in  their  range  to  a  tax  on  com- 
modities imported,  but  not  produced  at  home.  Hence  there 
is  an  incidental  protection.  This  is  sometimes  prevented 
by  an  excise,  or  internal  tax,  on  such  manufactures,  which, 
in  theory,  should  be  just  equal  to  the  amount  of  the  artificial 
increase  in  price,  the  object  being  so  to  equalize  the  taxes 
that  no  one  industry  shall  have  more  favor  than  another. 

A  further  point  of  difference  is  this  :  Protection  requires 
that  the  duties  should  be  on  a  large  number  of  articles,  — 
first,  for  the  logical  reason  that  if  the  principle  is  cor- 
rect, it  should  be  made  as  general  as  possible,  and  apply 
to  every  industry;  and  secondly,  for  the  unwarranted 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  15 

reason  that  the  system  is  more  stable  when  it  has  many 
who  are  interested  in  its  maintenance.  On  the  other 
hand,  revenue  tariff  demands  that  the  import  tax  shall  be 
laid  on  a  few  articles  only.  The  prosperity  induced  by 
low  taxes  enables  the  country  to  pay  by  its  own  products 
for  such  a  large  volume'  of  imports  that  the  necessities  of 
revenue  are  sufficiently  met,  without  imposing  a  burden 
upon  all  or  most  of  our  international  exchanges. 

The  best  example  of  a  purely  revenue  tariff  is  that  of 
Great  Britain,  as  it  has  existed  for  thirty  years.  All  du- 
ties are  collected  on  sixteen  articles  only,  and  ninety-eight 
per  cent  of  it  is  derived  from  only  five,  —  fruit,  spirits,  tea, 
tobacco,  and  wine.  This  tariff  yields  a  revenue  of  about 
$100.000,000  annually.  Added  to  this  is  an  excise  tax, 
which  makes  up  the  total  of  what  the  people  of  England 
pay  in  tariff  taxes. 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  appear  that  the  formula  for 
protection  is  this  :  "  The  duty  of  every  nation  is  to  insure 
the  prosperity  of  its  industries  by  ridding  them  of  such 
competition  as  would  interfere  with  their  development." 
The  formula  of  free  trade  is  this  :  "An  essential  condition 
of  a  nation's  prosperity  is  to  be  able  freely  to  exchange 
its  own  products  for  those  that  are  necessary  to  its  in- 
dustries and  its  consumption." 

We  are  to-day  living,  and  for  over  twenty-five  years  have 
been  living,  under  a  high  protective  tariff.  This  policy 
of  the  Government  in  regard  to  taxation  has  been  often 
assailed.  It  has  been  often  defended.  One  of  the  living 
questions  of  the  day  is,  Which  form  of  indirect  taxation  is 
the  better  ?  Does  the  protective  tariff  benefit  the  American 
people  in  the  aggregate?  Including  in  the  comparison 
all  classes  of  people  and  all  lawful  pursuits,  —  all  industrial 
occupations,  be  they  commercial,  manufacturing,  agricul- 
tural, or  professional,  —  would  they  flourish  better  under 


1 6  fS   PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

a  policy  of  high  tariff  laid  for  protection,  or  under  a  more 
moderate  tariff  laid  for  revenue?  This  question  covers 
all  the  debatable  ground  between  American  protectionists 

and  -free-traders.  ^^v-(^^u^C.    <7~^/t?>v>  \  &*«£_, 

Though  we  have  been  so  long  under  protection,  the 
question  can  not  be  considered  a  settled  one.  In  truth, 
the  voters  of  the  country  have  never  in  all  our  history  cast 
a  ballot  squarely  on  the  single  issue.  In  the  early  days 
of  the  Republic  the  question  was  bound  up  with  the 
greater  question  of  national  existence  itself.  It  mingled 
with  the  war  politics  of  1812  and  the  succeeding  years. 
It  was  entangled  with  the  issue  between  state  sovereignty 
and  national  supremacy  in  the  days  of  Nullification.  For 
more  than  a  generation  it  was  overshadowed  by  the  slavery 
question.  In  1861  it  was  involved  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  war,  and  the  enormous  financial  requirements  of  the  time. 
Since  that  date,  the  large  revenues  needed,  and  the  evident 
disposition  of  both  the  great  parties  to  shun  the  question, 
lest  it  should  disquiet  their  organizations,  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  prevent  it  from  becoming  a  clear-cut  and  definite 
national  issue. 

Perhaps  no  other  purely  economic  question  in  our  gov- 
ernment is  of  such  far-reaching  importance  as  this.  Hun- 
dreds of  millions  of  dollars  are  involved  in  it  every  year, 
and  protection  has  an  incalculable  potency  for  good  or 
ill  upon  the  prosperity  of  our  people.  The  signs  of  the 
times  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  great  question  is 
coming  up  for  final  solution  here,  as  it  came  up  in  Eng- 
land, much  sooner  than  the  popular  expectation  would 
predict.  Starvation  of  the  millions  will  not  in  America, 
as  it  did  in  England,  bring  the  question  to  a  sharp,  abrupt 
adjustment ;  but  the  contest  is  likely  to  be  long,  and  full 
of  temporary  reverses  to  both  sides.  That  truth  will  be 
finally  apprehended  with  clearness,  as  a  result  of  public 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  17 

agitation,  no  one  can  doubt  who  believes  in  the  progres- 
sive tendency  of  the  age. 

There  are  four  classes  of  opinion  in  our  country  with 
respect  to  the  tariff  existing  since  the  Rebellion  :  — 

1.  Protectionists  are  supporters  of  the  tariff  substantially 
as  it  now  exists;  and  they  plead  for  the  highest  rate  of 
duties  compatible  with  sufficient  revenue,  with  the  view  of 
shielding  domestic  industry  from  foreign  competition. 

2.  Tariff-reformers,  or   moderate   protectionists,  adhere 
to  the  idea  of  protection  for  its  own  sake,  but  advocate 
the  repeal  of  many  inconsistencies  and  abuses  which  they 
declare  result  from  the  present  scale  of  taxes.     Many  of 
these  favor,  in  the  interests  of  manufacturers,  the  repeal 
of  all   duties  on  raw  material  imported.      Some  of  this 
class  claim  that  the  existing  tariff  threatens  the  ruin  of 
the  protected  industries  themselves. 

3.  Moderate    free-traders,    or    revenue    reformers,    be- 
lieve that  protection  is  a  mistake,  and  favor  the  raising 
of  the  revenue  by  duties  on  a  few  articles  only,  so  as  to 
give  as  little  protection  as  possible,  and   to  interfere  as 
slightly  as  may  be  with  the  natural  course  of  commerce 
and  industry. 

4.  Absolute  free-traders  are  those  who  advocate  unre- 
stricted trade  between  our  nation  and  others,  as  now  exists 
between  the  States  of  the  Union.     They  would  provide  the 
public  revenues  by  excises,  and  by  property,  capitation,  and 
income  taxes.    They  believe,  with  the  third  class,  that  free- 
dom of  exchange  is  as  much  the  birthright  of  every  Amer- 
ican as  freedom  of  person  and  ballot.     They  believe  that 
all  interference  of  legislation  with  the  natural  currents  of 
trade  is  destructive  of  real  prosperity,  makes  wages  lower 
and  employment  uncertain,  raises  the  price  of  manufac- 
tured goods  with  no  compensating  increase  in  the  value  of 
other  necessaries  of  life,  and  limits  American  industry  to 

2 


1 8  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

a  home  demand  when  it  might  enter  the  markets  of  the 
world. 

There  is  a  wide-spread  belief  that  the  inquiry  as  to  what 
is  the  true  policy  with  respect  to  industry,  exchange,  and 
revenue,  as  influenced  by  law,  is  too  abstruse  to  interest 
the  masses,  and  too  complicated  to  be  understood  by  them. 
This  is  a  mistake.  It  is  perhaps  true  that  there  is  no  pop- 
ular comprehension  of  economic  laws  in  the  abstract ;  but 
we  have  no  citizens  of  ordinary  intelligence  who  do  not 
perceive  that  principles  which  are  best  for  the  individual 
are  also  best  for  the  nation.  All  men  see  that  national 
wealth  is  the  aggregate  of  individual  wealth,  and  that  what- 
ever influences  persons  for  good  or  ill  financially,  has  ex- 
actly the  same  effect  upon  the  nation.  The  question  is  a 
large  and  many-sided  one,  but  it  is  not  difficult. 

Thus  far  all  agree.  Even  free-traders  will  concede 
that  protection  does  benefit  certain  classes  of  our  people  ; 
and  most  protectionists  will  grant  that  a  revenue  tariff  is 
best  for  certain  other  of  our  industries.  But  when  the 
question  arises  as  to  the  effect  of  the  two  systems  upon 
our  people  in  the  aggregate,  there  is  an  immediate  and 
emphatic  divergence  of  opinion.  The  fact  that  the  ma- 
jority of  our  voters  have  views  more  or  less  mature,  and 
based  upon  what  seems  to  them  adequate  support,  would 
lead  us  to  infer  that  the  questions  involved  are  not  beyond 
the  grasp  of  any  adult  mind  of  good  intelligence.  An 
actual  examination  of  the  debatable  ground  fully  confirms 
this  inference. 

There  are  two  avenues  of  approach  to  every  economic 
question  :  i.  The  avenue  of  theory,  or  abstract  principle. 
Here  we  study  the  influence  of  legislation  upon  industry 
as  revealed  by  the  known  laws  of  human  action.  Men 
perceive  the  effect  of  the  thing  under  consideration  be- 
cause they  see  the  causes  which  have  led  to  that  effect. 


SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  19 

2.  The  avenue  of  experience  and  practical  application. 
Napoleon  said,  "  Experience  is  the  true  wisdom  of  na- 
tions." By  this  means  of  approach  men  are  able  to  know 
what  will  be,  and  now  is,  from  what  has  been.  It  is  the 
domain  of  history  and  statistics.  To  many  minds  it  is  the 
most  satisfactory  form  of  inquiry ;  but  others,  with  more 
penetration,  perceive  that  while  the  fact  may  be  undis- 
puted, the  inference  therefrom  may  be  erroneous.  If  these 
two  lines  of  argument  harmonize,  and  point  out  the  same 
conclusion,  they  constitute  the  strongest  possible  chain  of 
evidence ;  but  if  they  diverge  and  contradict,  they  are  mu- 
tually destructive,  and  serve  only  to  befog  and  darken. 

We  have  had  discussion  on  the  tariff,  on  occasion,  both 
in  our  national  legislature  and  among  the  people,  ever 
since  the  First  Congress  in  1789.  But  it  would  be  a 
mistake  to  infer  that  the  masses  of  the  people  are  well 
versed  in  economics.  There  are  several  reasons  for  this : 
i.  Our  people  have  been  absorbed  in  the  activities  of 
business,  and  they  have  not  inherited  any  mediaeval  burdens 
to  make  them  smart  under  their  wrongs  and  drive  them  to 
a  study  of  their  grievances.  2.  We  have  never  had  a  na- 
tional text-book  on  economic  science  such  as  Adam  Smith 
gave  to  England  in  the  "  Wealth  of  Nations."  3.  The 
policy  of  our  Government  has  been  peaceful,  our  wars  have 
not  been  numerous,  and  immense  standing  armies  have  not, 
as  in  Europe,  absorbed  the  surplus  and  eaten  out  the 
substance  of  our  people.  4.  The  immense  fertility  of  our 
soil,  the  abundance  of  the  common  necessaries  of  life,  and 
the  easy  conditions  of  existence,  have  diverted  us  from  the 
practice  of  small  economies.  5.  Even  men  in  official 
station  have  felt  that  the  people  did  not  demand  that  they 
should  understand  economic  science.  Not  more  than  two 
or  three,  even,  of  our  Presidents  have  had  a  clear  and 
comprehensive  grasp  of  the  subject  of  taxation.  In  con- 


2O  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

sequence  of  this  public  indifference  in  the  past,  our  law- 
makers in  Congress  have  not  been  called  to  a  sharp  account 
for  their  voices  and  their  votes,  and  the  patient  public  have 
allowed  affairs  to  drift. 

In  a  republic  the  people  are,  at  least  theoretically,  the 
only  proper  guardians  of  their  liberties  and  interests. 
Public  safety  is  found  only  in  virtue  and  intelligence ;  and 
the  solution  of  political  problems,  as  of  moral  ones,  can  not 
wisely  be  left  to  politicians,  nor  the  adjustment  of  economic 
questions  to  Congressmen  and  college  professors.  Like  the 
Sphinx  of  Thebes,  such  questions  as  the  one  under  con- 
sideration will  either  enslave  or  destroy  us  if  the  popular 
intellect  and  ballot  be  not  able  to  unravel  their  riddles. 


CHAPTER   II. 

RISE    OF    THE    TARIFF    SYSTEM    IN    EUROPE. 

HE  tariff  is  not  an  American  invention.  The 
word  itself  has  a  history.  Etymologically  it  is 
said  to  come  from  Tarifa,  a  town  and  castle 
at  the  Strait  of  Gibraltar,  where  the  Moorish 
pirates,  for  a  considerable  period  during  the  eight  centu- 
ries of  the  Mohammedan  sway  in  Spain,  exacted  tribute 
from  every  vessel  entering  or  leaving  the  Mediterranean. 
This  tariff  was  like  the  "squeeze  stations"  now  customary 
in  China.  A  certain  part  of  the  value  of  every  cargo  went 
to  satisfy  the  demands  of  these  pirates.  It  was  a  robbery 
tamely  submitted  to  by  the  nations  of  Europe  rather  than 
be  at  the  trouble  and  expense  of  ending  it,  —  just  as  in 
American  history  our  Government  for  so  many  years  encour- 
aged the  exactions  of  the  Algerian  pirates  by  unresistingly 
paying  them. 

It  is  not  just  to  hold  words,  any  more  than  people,  to  a 
strict  account  for  their  antecedents ;  but  it  may  be  said 
that  the  name  could  not  have  adhered  to  the  thing,  had 
there  been  no  kinship  between  them.  Though  the  word 
does  not  have  a  flattering  origin,  it  is  true  to  its  history  in 
at  least  this  sense,  —  that  it  always  takes,  but  never  gives ; 
it  always  levies,  but  never  contributes. 


22  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

In  the  Middle  Ages  those  towns  that  had  purchased 
their  freedom  from  the  lord  of  the  realm  were  governed 
by  guilds,  or  trade-corporations,  existing  in  them.  These 
guilds,  like  the  trade-unions  of  our  own  day,  aimed,  not  to 
secure  rights  to  all  citizens,  but  privileges  to  themselves. 
The  acknowledged  policy  everywhere  was  to  establish  mo- 
nopolies and  to  maintain  a  discrimination  against  rival 
goods  and  the  non-privileged  class  both  within  and  without 
the  town.  They  forbade  the  intrusion  of  strangers  into  the 
favored  industries,  limited  the  number  of  workmen,  and 
guarded  against  the  importation  of  competing  products. 
Here  is  the  origin  of  that  prominent  figure  of  our  own 
time,  the  skilled  workman. 

In  France,  for  hundreds  of  years,  freedom  of  choice  in 
trade  was  denied  the  people  by  the  despotism  of  the  mon- 
arch and  the  feudal  lords,  who  not  only  levied  the  general 
tax  and  such  military  service  as  the  feudal  system  required, 
but  also  laid  on  other  most  odious  restrictions.  It  was  the 
legal  duty  of  every  peasant  to  get  his  grain  ground  at  the 
mill  of  his  lord,  his  bread  baked  at  his  lord's  bakery,  his 
wine  made  at  his  lord's  wine-press,  —  all,  of  course,  at 
prices  scheduled  to  suit  the  proprietor.  Under  the  meddle- 
some hand  of  such  legislation  in  the  simple  affairs  of  do- 
mestic life,  it  is  not  strange  that  the  miseries  of  the  people 
increased,  and  the  productiveness  of  labor  diminished. 
When  it  was  seen  that  seven  eighths  of  the  people  of  France 
gave  more  than  half  their  products  to  support  the  other 
one  eighth  in  idleness  and  luxury,  there  arose  an  agitation 
among  the  peasants  and  the  workmen  of  the  towns.  This 
discontent  continued  from  age  to  age  till  it  culminated  in 
the  horrors  of  the  French  Revolution. 

For  centuries  but  little  was  done  in  any  country  of 
Europe  to  stimulate  intercourse  with  other  nations,  till  the 
commercial  idea  was  revived  by  the  astonishing  success  of 


fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  2$ 

Venice,  followed  later  by  the  other  maritime  cities  of  Italy, 
Genoa,  Naples,  Amalfi,  Florence,  and  Pisa.  The  abound- 
ing wealth  acquired  by  their  trade  with  the  outlying  world, 
and  especially  with  India,  opened  a  new  era  in  Europe. 
They  were  the  pioneers  in  modern  commerce ;  and  their 
history  shows  what  prodigality  of  riches  will  flow  from  an 
unobstructed  trade,  in  spite  of  factions  within  and  jealousies 
without. 

In  imitation  of  the  Italian  cities,  the  Hanseatic  League 
was  formed  by  about  seventy  commercial  and  manufactur- 
ing cities  on  and  near  the  Baltic  and  the  Rhine.  Their 
object  was  to  obtain  an  organized  commercial  supremacy 
in  the  North.  They  established  auxiliary  trading-posts  in 
other  parts  of  the  world.  Perfect  freedom  of  trade  existed 
between  all  these  towns,  and  between  them  and  their  dis- 
tant depots.  They  obtained  almost  exclusive  control  of 
exchanges  in  the  North,  as  the  cities  of  Italy  had  done  in 
the  South. 

But  these  two  pictures  of  prosperous  trade  were  con- 
spicuous exceptions  in  the  general  course  of  commerce  in 
Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages.  The  usual  practice  was 
that  governments,  while  not  establishing  systematic  tariff 
schedules,  laid  many  restrictions  upon  the  incoming  trade. 
But  in  thus  trying  to  injure  others  to  benefit  themselves, 
they  did  not  stop  at  the  boundaries  of  their  territory.  They 
carried  restriction  to  the  logical  end,  that  if  it  was  good  for 
boundaries,  it  was  also  good  for  the  interior ;  and  hence 
they  protected  one  class  of  citizens  against  another  class, 
cities  of  one  district  against  cities  of  another  district,  and  one 
domestic  occupation  against  other  domestic  occupations. 
"  If  a  man  of  Liege  came  to  Ghent  with  his  wares,  he 
was  obliged  first  to  pay  toll  at  the  city  gate ;  then,  when 
within  the  city,  he  was  embarrassed  at  every  step  with  what 
were  termed  '  the  privileges  of  companies.' "  With  the 


24  JS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

exception  of  England,  whose  Magna  Charta  prevented, 
every  State  of  Europe  laid  national,  provincial,  and  city  tolls, 
with  an  interruption  of  home  production  and  domestic  trade 
of  all  sorts.  The  tyranny  of  prescribing  by  law  the  price 
at  which  all  articles  should  be  sold  was  nearly  universal. 
Blanqui,  the  historian  of  political  economy,  tells  us  that 
commerce  would  have  been  destroyed  by  these  laws  but 
for  the  fact  that  they  were  inadequately  enforced,  since  the 
instincts  of  a  people  are  stronger  than  their  legislation. 

It  was  not  till  the  modern  age  that  commerce  began  to 
be  rightly  valued  as  a  minister  to  the  comforts  and  luxuries 
of  life.  But  for  a  long  time  erroneous  ideas  prevailed  as  to 
the  laws  of  trade.  Men  did  not  see  that  international  com- 
merce is  advantageous  to  both  parties  engaged  therein,  and 
that  after  every  fair  exchange  they  are  richer  than  before. 
A  prominent  opinion  of  the  time  was  that  trade  is  a  kind 
of  commercial  war,  and  that  in  exchange  between  two 
nations  one  gains,  while  the  other  loses.  The  paramount 
idea  with  any  nation  in  selling  its  products  was,  not  to  ob- 
tain the  commodities  of  other  lands,  but  to  secure  gold 
therefor.  In  the  estimation  of  the  times,  successful  com- 
merce consisted,  not  in  obtaining  the  products  of  labor,  but 
in  getting  into  one  country  from  another  the  largest  possi- 
ble balance  of  the  precious  metals.  This  has  been  called 
the  "  Bullion  Theory  "  of  trade. 

At  a  later  period  the  policy  of  European  traders  might 
have  been  formulated,  rather  paradoxically,  as  follows  :  To 
sell  is  profitable  ;  to  buy  is  unprofitable.  If  we  trade  with- 
out restriction  with  a  neighboring  people,  we  take  as  much 
of  their  products  as  they  take  of  ours.  Since,  therefore, 
they  profit  by  our  trade  as  much  as  we  profit  by  theirs, 
legislation  should  step  in  and  destroy  half  of  these  ex- 
changes, so  that  we  may  do  all  the  selling,  and  they  all  the 
buying.  Thus  shall  we  reap  all  the  profit.  This  modifi- 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  2$ 

cation  of  the  Bullion  Theory  is  known  as  the  "  Mercantile 
Theory." 

France  was  the  first  nation  to  put  the  Mercantile  Sys- 
tem into  actual  operation.  In  1572,  the  year  of  the  mas- 
sacre of  St.  Bartholomew,  the  king,  Charles  IX.,  forbade 
the  exportation  of  wool,  flax,  hemp,  and  yarn,  and  the 
importation  of  all  woven  fabrics  and  some  other  manufac- 
tured goods,  under  penalty  of  confiscation.  Sully,  the 
finance-minister  of  Henry  IV.,  elaborated  the  system,  and 
said :  "  It  is  still  more  necessary  to  do  without  the  com- 
modities of  our  neighbors  than  without  their  money."  But 
the  system  was  brought  to  its  highest  perfection  under 
Colbert,  the  famous  minister  of  finance  to  the  Grand  Mon- 
arch, Louis  XIV.  His  idea  of  securing  national  wealth 
is  thus  pointedly  expressed  in  his  own  words  :  "  To  reduce 
export  duties  on  provisions  and  the  manufactures  of  the 
kingdom ;  to  diminish  import  duties  on  everything  which 
is  of  use  in  manufactures ;  and  to  repel  the  products  of 
foreign  manufacture  by  raising  the  duties." 

From  France  the  system  extended  to  other  parts  of  Eu- 
rope. Under  Emperor  Charles  V.  of  Spain  and  Germany, 
and  his  successors,  it  obtained  wide  adoption.  But  since 
it  was  based  upon  the  injury  of  neighboring  nations,  it 
brought  on  retaliations  and  enmities,  which  found  expres- 
sion in  frequent  wars.  For  two  centuries  most  of  the  wars 
of  Europe  were  partly  or  wholly  commercial  in  charac- 
ter. Under  the  operation  of  this  system  and  the  contests 
brought  on  by  it,  Spain  passed  within  a  century  from  the 
highest  grandeur  of  empire  to  a  condition  of  weakness  and 
dependence. 

It  is  not  strange  that  under  the  system  of  Colbert  man- 
ufactures should  flourish.  They  responded  to  the  new 
policy ;  and  whatever  may  be  said  of  its  effects  upon  other 
industries,  their  growth  was  really  phenomenal.  The  whole 


26  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

force  of  legislation  was  directed  to  their  stimulation.  The 
national  treasury  also  received  large  revenues.  Encour- 
aged by  this  apparent  success,  Colbert  proposed  another 
change  in  the  theory  of  sales.  This  time  the  Protective 
System  was  the  result.  "His  tariff  of  1667  was  the  first 
protective  tariff,  so  called,  —  that  is  to  say,  it  was  the  first 
formal  schedule  of  tariff  taxes  laid  for  the  avowed  purpose 
of  cutting  off  competition  from  home  manufacturers  in 
order  to  raise  the  price  of  their  wares."  This  tariff  shut 
out  the  products  of  the  Dutch  looms.  The  Hollanders  first 
argued,  then  remonstrated,  and  then  adopted  retaliation. 
The  wines,  brandies,  and  textile  manufactures  of  France 
were  excluded  from  Holland  by  the  counter-irritant,  another 
protective  tariff.  French  agriculture,  which  had  suffered 
injury  from  the  prohibition  of  the  export  of  grain,  was 
now  further  injured  by  the  foreign  interdict  against  the 
vintage. 

As  the  Mercantile  System  went  from  France  over  Eu- 
rope, so  did  the  Protective.  Notwithstanding  the  remon- 
strance of  the  farmers,  the  tradesmen,  and  the  importers  of 
France,  the  system  was  persevered  in  as  a  settled  policy. 
Most  of  the  other  commercial  nations  of  Europe,  if  not 
persuaded  to  adopt  it  because  of  its  virtues,  felt  compelled 
to  do  so  in  self-defence.  This  system  has  continued  till 
our  own  time.  To-day  France,  Germany,  Russia,  Spain, 
and  Austria  are  practising  protection  as  a  settled  and 
definite  national  policy.  England,  the  Netherlands,  and 
Switzerland  do  not  believe  in  legislative  restriction  of  com- 
merce ;  and  in  giving  expression  to  their  economic  ideas, 
they  have  made  trade  as  free  as  is  compatible  with  a  rev- 
enue derived  from  customs-duties.  Thus  in  our  time  one 
part  of  Europe  practises  the  largest  attainable  freedom  of 
exchange  with  all  the  world,  and  the  other  part  practises 
isolation,  restriction,  and  national  self-sufficiency. 


CHAPTER  III. 

A  LEAF  FROM  THE  HISTORY  OF  PROTECTION  IN 
ENGLAND. 

OR  a  thousand  years  Great  Britain  was  known  as 
an  agricultural  and  grazing  island.  Her  heaths 
and  meadows  were  favorable  to  the  raising  of 
sheep,  and  in  the  early  time  wool  became  the 
chief  article  of  export.  In  the  English  House  of  Lords 
the  seat  of  highest  dignity  is  known  as  the  Woolsack,  hav- 
ing been  originally  a  sack  of  wool,  —  thus  to  indicate  that 
England's  power  and  wealth  were  founded  upon  that 
product. 

Previous  to  the  time  of  Edward  III.  the  wool  was  sold 
to  Belgium,  there  converted  into  cloth,  and  then  taken 
back  for  consumption  in  England.  In  order  to  obtain 
revenue,  Edward  I.  secured,  in  1275,  by  vote  of  Parlia- 
ment, a  tax  on  each  sack  of  wool  exported.  This  was  the 
very  first  step  in  taxation  looking  to  customs  revenue  in 
England.  A  later  monarch,  in  order  to  force  the  manu- 
facture, forbade  that  wool  should  be  exported,  and  woollen 
cloth  imported.  Flemish  weavers  were  invited  to  settle  in 
England,  and  the  wearing  of  any  but  English  cloth  was 
prohibited.  The  Parliament  of  Queen  Elizabeth  enacted 
that  the  exporter  of  sheep  or  wool  should  suffer  fines, 


28  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

mutilation,  and  other  savage  penalties.  This  prohibition 
was  continued  till  1825.  An  Act  was  passed  in  1678, 
ordering,  for  the  encouragement  of  the  woollen  manufac- 
ture, that  every  corpse  should  be  buried  in  a  woollen 
shroud.  The  result  of  all  this  was  the  establishment  of 
woollen  manufactures,  in  rivalry  with  the  Flemish.  The 
merchant  marine  of  England  also  had  its  origin  at  this  time, 
encouraged  by  the  free  importation  of  raw  material  and 
the  free  exportation  of  finished  commodities. 

The  Colonial  System  grew  out  of  the  Protective,  as  the 
Protective  grew  out  of  the  Mercantile,  and  the  Mercantile 
out  of  the  Bullion.  It  was  a  policy  to  make  the  colonies 
of  the  parent  country  minister  to  its  prosperity.  It  pre- 
vailed among  all  the  colony-planting  nations  of  Europe. 
"The  home  government,"  says  Blanqui,  "used  the  col- 
onists to  rob  the  natives,  and  tariffs  to  rob  the  colonists." 

Our  own  colonial  history  shows  what  a  zealous  supporter 
of  this  system  and  what  an  unkind  guardian  of  colonial 
commerce  was  Great  Britain.  Her  dependencies  in  all 
parts  of  the  world  were  made  a  source  of  revenue.  An 
English  statesman  declared  in  Parliament  that  this  was  the 
very  purpose  for  which  they  were  planted.  The  precise 
object  was  to  secure  an  American  market  for  English  goods 
at  a  high  price,  and  an  English  market  for  American  goods 
at  a  low  price.  It  meant  the  importation  of  American  raw 
material  into  England,  and  the  exportation  of  English  fin- 
ished goods  to  America.  The  first  and  all  attempts  to 
begin  manufactures  in  this  country  were  followed  by  the 
interference  of  Parliament.  The  Navigation  Acts  of  1651 
greatly  restricted  the  colonial  shipping.  In  1698  the 
colonial  woollens,  whose  manufacture  had  sprung  up  spon- 
taneously in  the  free  atmosphere  of  America,  were  for- 
bidden to  be  sold  by  one  colony  to  another.  In  1710 
the  Commons  declared  that  manufactures  in  the  colonies 


IS  PROTECTION-  A   BENEFIT?  29 

would  lessen  their  dependence  on  England.  In  1732  it 
was  forbidden,  in  the  land  of  the  beaver,  to  export  hats, 
since,  as  was  argued,  America  would  soon  supply  the  whole 
world  with  hats.  In  1750  it  was  forbidden  to  erect  in 
America  any  mill  for  rolling  or  slitting  iron ;  and  Pitt 
exclaimed,  "  It  is  forbidden  to  make  even  a  nail  for  a 
horse-shoe."  In  a  country  where  every  family  read  the 
Scriptures,  no  English  Bible  could  be  printed  without  com- 
mitting piracy.  In  1765  the  emigration  of  artisans  from 
England  was  made  an  offence,  under  heavy  penalties. 

The  first  General  Congress  of  the  American  colonies  in 
1 765  passed  a  mild  resolution,  which  sounds  to-day  like  a 
truism  :  "  That  the  restrictions  imposed  by  several  late  Acts 
of  Parliament  on  the  trade  of  these  colonies  will  render 
them  unable  to  purchase  the  manufactures  of  Great  Brit- 
ain." The  Revolutionary  War  was  a  commercial  war. 
"No  taxation  without  representation"  was  not  the  real 
issue.  That  was  only  an  outcry  to  catch  the  popular  ear. 
It  was  well  understood  that  it  was  not  the  custom  with  any 
European  nation  to  permit  colonial  representation  in  its 
law-making  assemblies.  The  soul  of  the  war  was  the  com- 
mercial question,  —  whether  America  should  have  an  un- 
disturbed commerce ;  and  that  eight  years'  struggle  was 
simply  a  well-conceived  revolt  against  the  selfish  and  un- 
natural motherhood  of  England. 

The  early  law  for  the  protection  of  wool-growers  and 
woollen  manufacturers  was  soon  followed  by  the  protection 
of  the  grain-growers.  These  Acts  were  called  the  Corn 
Laws.  They  date  from  1360,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  III. 
The  first  legislation  prohibited  the  export  of  grain,  except 
from  a  few  cities  which  had  bought  license  from  the  Crown. 
Later  it  was  the  law  that  exportation  should  be  allowed 
when  grain  was  so  abundant  in  England  that  the  price  did 
not  exceed  6s.  8</.  For  a  hundred  years  there  was  no 


3O  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

restriction  placed  upon  the  importation,  but  in  1463  a  stat- 
ute was  enacted  forbidding  the  import  when  the  price  was 
below  65-.  Zd.  Thus  for  a  long  time  there  could  be  no 
exportation  when  the  price  was  above  that  figure,  and  no 
importation  when  it  was  below.  This  was  an  attempt  to 
protect  the  producer  against  too  low  a  price,  and  the 
consumer  against  too  high  a  price. 

During  three  hundred  years  the  prevailing  idea  in  legisla- 
tion was  protection.  Special  privileges  were  accorded  to 
certain  classes  and  interests  at  the  expense  of  certain  other 
classes  and  interests.  Legislation  was  partial  to  the  pro- 
ducers, and  the  mantle  of  protection  was  made  to  extend 
as  far  as  possible  over  the  most  prominent  industries.  The 
rights  of  consumers  were  for  the  most  part  ignored.  The 
landlords  and  the  farmers  were  protected  by  laws  shutting 
out  foreign  grain,  wool,  and  live-stock.  The  manufacturers 
were  favored  by  duties  on  woollens,  linens,  silks,  iron.  The 
emigration  of  artisans  and  the  exportation  of  machinery 
were  forbidden.  Combination  of  workmen  was  made  ille- 
gal, lest  the  price  of  labor  should  thereby  be  advanced. 
Ship-owners  were  protected  by  the  Navigation  Acts.  Thus 
every  industry  which  could  influence  Parliament  was  raised 
upon  a  platform  of  artificial  privileges.  But  the  laboring 
classes  were  left  to  bear  the  burden  of  prices  arbitrarily 
raised  for  the  benefit  of  the  government  favorites. 

The  benefits  of  protection  were  for  a  long  time  unques- 
tioned by  any  influential  class.  The  merchants  of  Great 
Britain  were  the  first  to  see  that  the  artificial  increase  of 
prices  resulting  from  protection  decreased  exports,  reduced 
home  consumption,  and  thereby  lowered  the  average  com- 
forts of  the  English  people.  Their  petition  to  Parliament  is 
a  clear  and  forcible  plea  for  unrestricted  trade.  It  would  be 
too  much  to  say  they  were  not  influenced  by  self-interest. 

The  Reform  Bill  of  1832  greatly  enlarged  the  gift  of 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  31 

suffrage.  This  was  a  step  in  the  march  of  popular  rights 
as  opposed  to  the  usurpations  of  the  nobility.  In  1836 
the  grain-crop  was  a  failure,  and  for  the  three  following 
years  the  rain  ruined  the  harvest.  Food  was  greatly  in- 
creased in  price,  and  much  suffering  ensued.  "  Enough 
had  been  already  said  about  the  freedom  of  trade  to  guide 
the  hungry  people  to  protection  as  the  origin  of  their  sor- 
rows." The  ownership  of  the  soil  had  been  for  centuries 
a  monopoly  under  the  operation  of  laws  forbidding  the  sale 
of  land  and  the  breaking  up  of  landed  estates.  In  addition 
to  this,  it  was  now  seen  that  the  landlords  were  also  profited 
by  adding  to  the  price  of  grain,  naturally  high,  the  further 
advance  caused  by  the  restriction  upon  importation.  With 
starvation  imminent  and  with  food  unavoidably  dear,  it  was 
intolerable  that  the  Government  should  still  further  increase 
the  price  artificially,  and  extend  partiality  toward  the  grain- 
producing  few  as  against  the  bread-eating  millions. 

To  guide  the  course  of  growing  opinion,  the  Anti-Corn 
Law  League  was  formed  at  Manchester  in  1838,  headed 
by  Richard  Cobden  and  John  Bright.  By  this  association 
a  wisely  conceived  and  well  executed  agitation  was  prose- 
cuted by  speeches,  pamphlets,  tracts,  and  meetings  in  every 
part  of  the  kingdom. 

When  Sir  Robert  Peel  took  office  in  1841  as  prime 
minister,  the  condition  of  the  people  was  the  most  distant 
from  prosperity.  The  laboring  population  was  reduced  to 
the  greatest  extremity  between  the  upper  millstone  of  high- 
priced  food,  and  the  nether  one  of  diminished  employment 
and  falling  wages.  There  were  bread-riots  in  both  the 
agricultural  districts  and  the  manufacturing  centres.  One 
person  in  every  twenty  was  a  pauper,  and  the  annual  ex- 
pense of  pauperism,  which  was  paid  from  the  public  purse, 
was  very  heavy.  So  hard  were  the  conditions  of  a  liveli- 
hood that  thousands  of  children  were  taken  from  the  sports 


32  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

and  occupations  proper  for  youth,  and  driven  to  exhausting 
labor  for  a  pittance  in  the  mines  and  factories.  But  distress 
did  not  afflict  the  lower  stratum  of  society  only.  "  Every 
interest  in  the  country  was  alike  depressed.  In  the  manu- 
facturing districts  mills  and  workshops  were  closed,  and  prop- 
erty depreciated  in  value.  In  the  seaports  shipping  was  laid 
up  useless  in  the  harbor.  The  revenue  was  insufficient  to 
meet  the  national  expenditures.  The  country  was  brought 
to  the  verge  of  national  and  universal  bankruptcy." 

Without  discussing  the  causes  of  these  calamities,  it  is 
sufficient  at  present  to  say  that  the  majority  of  the  middle 
classes  and  a  large  part  of  the  laboring  people  ascribed 
them  to  the  commercial  policy  of  the  nation.  Under  the 
leadership  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  —  the  most  effi- 
cient propaganda  ever  known  in  politics  —  public  sentiment 
compelled  the  attention  of  Parliament.  Richard  Cobden 
was  a  man  of  unsurpassed  sagacity ;  nor  did  he  have  a 
superior  anywhere  in  the  clear,  cool,  and  simple  presenta- 
tion of  truth  as  apprehended  by  himself.  John  Bright  had 
a  matchless  tongue ;  and  his  eloquence  added  enthusiasm 
to  the  movement,  which  was  prosecuted  with  an  energy 
unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  political  agitation.  The  law- 
makers, largely  controlled  by  the  manufacturing  and  the 
landed  interests,  were  forced  to  hear  and  discuss  the  public 
grievances.  Parliament,  under  this  compulsion,  reduced 
or  repealed  the  duties  upon  seven  hundred  and  fifty  arti- 
cles, including  the  taxes  on  all  raw  materials  entering 
manufactures. 

But  these  concessions,  instead  of  satisfying  the  free- 
traders, only  stimulated  them.  The  ultimate  question 
could  not  be  ignored.  Even  Nature  seemed  in  league  with 
the  agitation.  The  summer  of  1845  had  been  cool,  and 
during  the  autumn  the  rain  fell  unceasingly.  The  potatoes 
were  rotting  in  the  ground  in  Ireland,  and  the  harvests 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  33 

were  ungarnered  in  England.  No  man  in  the  nation  com- 
prehended the  situation  more  clearly  than  Sir  Robert  Peel. 
He  reluctantly  proposed  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  In 
1846,  after  a  fierce  contest  in  the  House  of  Commons,  the 
measure  triumphed  by  a  vote  of  327  to  229.  The  House 
of  Lords  was  at  that  time  under  the  autocracy  of  the  vener- 
able Duke  of  Wellington,  the  hero  of  Waterloo.  He  said  to 
his  associates  :  "  You  can  not  dislike  the  Bill  any  more  than 
I ;  but  we  must  all  vote  for  it."  This  the  Lords  most  un- 
willingly did,  in  such  numbers  as  to  secure  its  adoption. 

The  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  was  like  the  removal  of  the 
keystone  from  an  arch.  The  protective  system  was  about 
to  crumble  into  ruins.  The  rest  of  the  work  was  done 
swiftly.  In  1842  there  remained  an  import  duty  on  twelve 
hundred  articles  ;  but  a  few  years  later  these  were  reduced 
to  twelve,  which  were  retained  for  revenue,  and  not  for 
protection.  The  artificial  regulation  of  prices  was  at  an 
end,  and  the  great  law  of  supply  and  demand  was  thence- 
forth to  exert  its  gentle  sway  in  place  of  the  arbitrary  laws 
of  parliaments. 

The  improvement  in  social  and  business  affairs  since  the 
downfall  of  protection  in  England  has  been  very  marked.  It 
is  a  matter  of  official  record  that  in  the  forty  years  since  the 
repeal,  the  wages  of  laboring  men  have  increased  a  hundred 
per  cent,  and  the  deposits  of  savings-banks,  as  the  sur- 
plus of  wages,  have  greatly  enlarged.  While  pauperism  exists 
there  as  elsewhere,  both  it  and  crime  have  decreased  rela- 
tively and  absolutely.  Employment  became  more  certain 
and  steady,  and  the  scale  of  comforts  among  the  masses 
was  raised.  A  great  statesman  of  England  at  a  recent  ad- 
dress at  Birmingham  said  :  "Centuries  of  legislation  in  this 
country  have  not  done  so  much,  have  not  conferred  so 
great  benefits  upon  the  people  of  England,  as  was  con- 
ferred by  that  great  minister  of  forty  years  ago." 

3 


34  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

Even  agriculture,  to  whose  interests  the  repeal  was  sup- 
posed to  be  particularly  hostile,  has  scarcely  felt  the  absence 
of  legal  encouragement,  while  it  has  found  an  active  home 
demand  at  excellent  prices  for  every  bushel  it  can  produce 
and  for  every  ox  it  can  drive  to  the  shambles.  In  com- 
merce the  betterment  was  strongly  marked.  Trade  with  the 
outlying  world  received  a  spur  which  it  feels  to  this  hour. 

The  prosperity  of  manufactures  in  England  since  the 
repeal  has  been  equally  as  great.  Instead  of  having  an  in- 
sular trade  only,  as  under  restriction,  the  factories  send  out 
their  products  into  all  quarters  of  the  earth.  Not  being 
burdened  by  taxes  on  raw  material  and  by  other  weights, 
the  products  of  England  are  able  to  overleap  the  walls 
which  legislation  has  raised  about  other  countries,  and  to 
find  their  way  into  every  market  beneath  the  sun.  There 
is  some  truth  in  the  words  of  a  protectionist  writer  :  "  Eng- 
land can  now  carry  the  cotton  of  Hindostan  and  Georgia 
over  sea  and  land,  spin  and  weave  it  into  stuffs,  and  then 
carry  it  back  to  undersell  the  American  and  the  Indian 
manufacturer,  who  sees  the  staple  growing  under  the  win- 
dows of  his  factory." 

It  is  not  claimed  that  Peel's  reform  was  the  sole  cause  of 
these  great  advances.  It  will  not  be  claimed  that  it  had 
any  effect  whatever  in  producing  these  marvellous  changes, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  its  direct  and  only  tendency 
was  and  is  to  produce  those  identical  results.  But  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  causes  which -have  contributed  to 
this  development  of  industrial  England,  it  is  sufficient  for 
the  present  purpose  to  remark  that  the  fact  that  there  is  not 
now  and  never  has  been  in  that  land  any  popular  clamor  to 
return  to  the  old  order  of  things,  may  be  assumed  as  evi- 
dence without  argument  that  the  change  from  hampered  to 
unrestricted  industry  was  for  the  best  interests  of  Great 
Britain  in  the  aggregate. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

OUTLINE  OF  TARIFF   HISTORY  IN  THE 
UNITED   STATES. 

HE  Mercantile  and  the  Colonial  Systems  gave 
us  our  nationality.  Bancroft  the  historian 
says  :  "  American  independence,  like  the  great 
rivers  of  the  country,  had  many  sources ;  but 
the  head  spring  which  colored  all  the  stream  was  the  Navi- 
gation Act."  The  causes  of  the  Revolution,  when  reduced 
to  the  last  analysis,  show  clearly  that  the  war  was  a  struggle 
chiefly  in  the  interest  of  free  commerce.  It  had  already 
been  foreseen  that  self-respecting  colonies  would  look  for- 
ward to  the  time  when  they  should  be  able  to  throw  off 
the  restrictions  of  the  colonial  system,  and  declare  for 
themselves  sovereignty  both  in  commerce  and  government. 
Even  before  the  great  Declaration,  it  was  resolved  by  vote 
of  Congress,  on  April  6,  1776,  to  throw  open  the  ports  of 
the  thirteen  colonies  to  the  trade  of  all  the  world.  British 
custom-houses  were  thus  swept  away  even  before  the 
British  statute.  Bancroft  says  :  "  Absolute  free  trade  took 
the  place  of  hoary  restrictions."  It  was  under  the  guidance 
of  such  ideas  that  our  revolutionary  fathers  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  arraigned  King  George  for  "  cutting 
off  our  trade  with  all  parts  of  the  world."  Had  a  political 


36  /.S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

prophet  then  stood  up  and  forecasted  that  within  thirteen 
years  our  Congress,  with  deliberation  and  as  a  public  ad- 
vantage, would  be  cutting  off  the  same  trade,  he  would  have 
been  laughed  to  scorn.  Yet  this  very  thing  was  done. 

After  independence,  during  the  years  of  the  war  and 
the  subsequent  years  of  the  Confederation,  our  fathers 
placed  little  restriction  upon  foreign  exchange,  and  the 
flags  of  all  nations  were  welcome  in  our  harbors.  During 
the  war,  in  1778,  a  treaty  of  alliance  and  commerce  was 
made  between  France  and  the  United  States.  It  was 
agreed  to  take  as  the  basis  of  agreement  "  the  most  per- 
fect equality  and  reciprocity."  The  treaty  agrees  to  found 
"the  advantages  of  commerce  solely  upon  reciprocal  utility 
and  the  just  rules  of  free  intercourse."  The  treaty  of  1783 
with  England,  which  ended  the  Revolution,  did  not  con- 
tain any  provision  concerning  commerce  between  the  two 
nations,  though  our  envoys  tried  hard  to  have  such  stipu- 
lations inserted. 

During  the  war  many  manufactures  had  sprung  up 
to  furnish  the  products  formerly  obtained  from  England. 
These  industries  were  thus  of  a  mushroom-growth,  forced 
up  by  the  war.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  they 
should  be  embarrassed  when  peace  came  and  foreign  trade 
revived.  The  cry  was  made  that  the  country  could  not  en- 
dure the  competition  of  England,  and  that  free  trade  would 
prove  ruinous  to  us.  This  revival  of  the  British  trade  was 
advantageous  to  England  j  but  so  deeply  was  the  Mercan- 
tile System  impressed  upon  the  popular  mind  that  it  was 
not  clearly  seen  that  it  was  advantageous  to  America  also. 
The  war  had  greatly  restricted  the  trade  with  England. 
This  was  an  undisputed  evil.  Strangely  enough,  it  was 
now  seriously  proposed  to  cut  it  off  yet  more  completely 
by  our  own  will  and  act,  through  the  means  of  protective 
duties. 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT!  37 

Surely,  if  the  competition  of  England  was  really  a  thing 
to  be  feared  at  all,  it  was  to  be  feared  then,  when  the  young 
nation  was  yet  in  the  formative  state.  The  national  growth 
was  yet  in  the  gristle.  Before  it  could  harden  into  bone, 
the  pressure  from  without  would,  if  at  all,  check  its  growth 
and  spoil  its  symmetry.  Instead  of  this,  we  find  in  1 789 
that  we  had  manufactures  of  iron,  glass,  paper,  leather,  flax, 
hemp,  copper,  hats,  sugar,  and  cloth,  which  had  not  only 
endured  English  competition  for  ten  years,  but  were  boasted 
of  as  strong  and  prosperous.  All  this  was  without  legisla- 
tive encouragement. 

Under  the  Constitution,  Congress  was  endowed  with  the 
exclusive  power  "  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations 
and  among  the  several  States."  The  first  session  of  the 
First  Congress,  in  1789,  had  not  been  convened  more  than 
forty-eight  hours,  when  the  pressing  question  of  revenue 
arose.  Revenue  led  at  once  to  the  further  question  of  pro- 
tection. It  is  a  significant  fact  of  the  first  tariff  debate  in 
Congress  that  the  first  word  which  looked  toward  protec- 
tion came  from  Pennsylvania.  Congressman  Hartley  said  : 
"  I  take  it  to  be  the  policy  of  every  enlightened  nation  to 
give  its  manufactures  that  degree  of  encouragement  neces- 
sary to  perfect  them,  without  oppressing  other  parts  of 
the  country."  In  the  lengthy  debate  which  followed,  the 
necessity  of  revenue  by  customs-duties  was  conceded.  Pro- 
tection was  the  controverted  point.  Hamilton  favored  en- 
couragement to  manufactures,  but  preferred  direct  bounties 
and  premiums  from  the  treasury,  rather  than  that  duties 
should  be  protective  or  prohibitive.  The  Congressional 
lobby  began  its  existence  in  our  First  Congress,  and  there 
was  a  sharp  struggle  between  sections  and  interests. 

Finally,  our  first  tariff — the  "Hamilton  Tariff"  —  was 
passed,  July  4,  1789.  It  distinctly  avowed  the  protective 
principle,  and  stated  that  "  the  encouragement  and  pro- 


38  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

tection  of  manufactures "  are  desirable  in  themselves. 
But  this  tariff  was  passed  as  an  unavoidable  evil,  and  it  was 
clearly  declared  to  be  only  temporary.  As  a  protective 
measure  it  was  intended  to  secure  a  prosperous  start  to 
the  infant  industries,  and  was  to  come  to  an  end  by  limi- 
tation in  1796.  The  duties  averaged  on  the  whole  list 
about  eight  per  cent.  The  next  year  the  duties  were  raised 
to  an  average  of  eleven  per  cent,  and  two  years  later  to 
fourteen  per  cent. 

Instead  of  ending  in  seven  years,  it  was  continued  in 
effect.  During  the  twenty-seven  years  of  its  existence,  to 
1816,  seventeen  modifications  of  the  tariff  were  enacted. 
In  the  aggregate,  the  duties  were  raised  by  these  changes. 
As  a  revenue  tariff  it  was  a  success  to  an  unexpected 
degree,  the  income  steadily  increasing  from  year  to  year. 
The  essence  of  this  tariff  was  revenue ;  the  incident  was 
protection.  It  was  also  understood  to  be  retaliatory  in  its 
nature,  similar  measures  being  at  that  time  enforced  by 
other  commercial  nations.  It  was  not  understood  by  any 
one  that  protection  was  desirable  as  a  permanent  policy, 
or  that  it  was  applicable  to  all  times,  circumstances,  and 
countries. 

During  these  years  the  war  in  Europe,  resulting  in  the 
English  blockade  of  the  French  coasts,  the  Berlin  Decree 
of  Napoleon,  the  English  Orders  in  Council,  and  the  retal- 
iatory Milan  Decree  of  France,  subjected  ocean  commerce 
to  the  greatest  loss  and  vexation.  In  order  to  protect  the 
American  ship-owner,  the  embargo  of  1807  was  enacted, 
which  extended  the  doubtful  advantage  of  shutting  up  our 
ships  at  home.  After  its  repeal,  Non- Intercourse  Acts  were 
passed  by  way  of  retaliation.  Then  came  the  War  of  1812, 
which  was  used  as  a  reason  for  doubling  the  duties  on  im- 
ports. Manufactured  articles  were  very  high,  and  factories 
were  erected  in  large  numbers,  partly  because  the  war  cut 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  39 

off  foreign  competition,  and  partly  because  the  tariff  raised 
the  price  of  their  products. 

Our  second  tariff  is  known  as  the  "Calhoun  Tariff"  of 
1816.  The  embargo,  the  Non-Intercourse  Acts,  and  the 
war,  by  shutting  out  foreign  goods,  had  forced  a  demand 
for  home  products,  and  domestic  manufactures  were  greatly 
stimulated  thereby.  In  the  strange  light  of  the  times,  these 
three  influences  seemed  to  be  beneficent  forces,  and  it 
appeared  that  peace  would  be  a  calamity  if  its  return  should 
open  the  way  to  an  unrestricted  trade.  It  was  perhaps 
true  that  these  manufactures  of  a  forced  growth  could  not 
live  except  by  a  continuation  of  the  same  circumstances 
which  had  brought  them  into  existence.  Hence  to  per- 
petuate the  life  of  industries  called  into  being  by  public 
calamities,  our  first  purely  protective  tariff  was  passed. 
This  is  the  true  significance  of  the  Calhoun  Tariff. 

Now  protection  was  the  object  sought ;  revenue  was  the 
incident.  New  England,  voiced  by  Daniel  Webster,  op- 
posed the  measure,  while  South  Carolina,  speaking  through 
John  C.  Calhoun,  pronounced  in  favor  of  it.  This  attitude 
of  sections  was  soon  exactly  reversed.  The  marked  feat- 
ure of  this  tariff  was  the  protective  duty  on  cotton  goods, 
in  the  interests  of  the  cotton-growing  States.  It  was  Cal- 
houn's  opinion  that  such  a  tariff  on  cotton  goods  would 
raise  the  price  of  the  raw  staple.  When  it  became  appar- 
ent, however,  that  the  tariff  benefited  Lowell  and  Jackson 
in  the  operation  of  their  new  cotton-mill  at  Waltham,  but 
not  the  growers  of  the  fibre  in  the  South,  there  was  a  rapid 
change  of  sentiment  on  the  question  of  protection  in  both 
sections.  Here  began  that  settled  opposition  to  protection 
from  the  maritime  and  agricultural  classes,  and  that  deter- 
mined advocacy  of  it  by  the  manufacturing  classes,  which 
have  continued  till  to-day. 
The  idea  of  revenue  having  been  left  behind,  the  duties 


4O  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

became  excessive,  for  purposes  of  protection.  The  average 
of  all  duties  was  not  far  from  twenty-five  per  cent.  This 
tariff  first  introduced  the  principle  of  minimum  valuation, 
it  being  provided  that  all  cottons,  even  the  cheapest,  should 
be  assumed  at  the  custom-house  to  have  cost  at  least  twenty- 
five  cents  a  yard.  As  the  duty  was  ad  valorem,  and  not 
specific,  this  was  a  scheme  for  raising  the  tax  on  the 
cheaper  fabrics  without  appearing  to  do  so. 

Though  this  is  properly  called  the  Calhoun  Tariff,  since 
his  great  influence  carried  it  through  to  adoption,  it  was 
really  the  result  of  a  union  of  the  Calhoun  forces  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  cotton-growers,  and  of  the  Lowell  influence 
in  the  interest  of  the  cotton-manufacture.  Wool  was  also 
"  encouraged  "  by  a  duty  of  twenty-five  per  cent.  Pennsyl- 
vania was  pleased  with  a  duty  of  twenty  dollars  a  ton  on 
steel.  The  Louisiana  sugar  interests  clamored  for  recog- 
nition ;  and  accordingly,  in  the  general  distribution  of 
gifts,  sugar  was  "encouraged"  by  a  duty  of  three  cents  a 
pound  on  brown,  and  twelve  cents  a  pound  on  loaf.  Minor 
changes,  nearly  always  upward,  were  made  in  the  tariff 
from  year  to  year  as  this  interest  or  that  one  chanced  to 
be  in  the  ascendency  in  Congress  or  in  the  lobby. 

Our  third  tariff  was  enacted  in  1824,  on  the  eve  of  a  pres- 
idential election,  and  is  known  as  the  "  Clay  Tariff,"  since 
Henry  Clay,  the  "  favorite  son  "  of  Kentucky,  at  that  time 
Speaker  of  the  House,  was  chiefly  instrumental  in  securing 
its  adoption.  For  eight  years  the  country  had  lived  under 
moderate  protection.  That  time  was  long  enough  to  ena- 
ble the  various  sections  and  industries  to  see  with  some 
clearness  where  their  interests  lay.  The  new  tariff  was 
the  result  of  this  wider  and  clearer  view.  The  arguments 
were  not  new,  but  they  were  more  clearly  apprehended 
than  before,  and  the  debate,  especially  on  the  free  trade 
side,  was  more  ably  sustained  than  on  previous  occasions. 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  41 

The  several  industries  encouraged  by  the  Calhoun  Tariff 
now  demanded  higher  duties,  and  many  not  previously 
favored  now  clamored  for  a  place  on  the  schedules.  The 
Bill  was  so  adroitly  drawn  up  that  it  combined  strength 
enough  by  favoring  this  interest  in  one  clause,  and  that 
interest  in  another,  to  secure  its  adoption.  The  Bill  was 
simply  a  determined  and  organized  push  for  more  enlarged 
favor. 

The  debate  was  a  bitter  clash  of  interests  and  sections. 
It  was  a  hot  race  for  government  patronage,  each  industry 
striving  for  the  first  place,  as  though  ruin  were  about  to 
take  the  rearmost.  The  South  was  almost  solidly  opposed 
to  protection,  as  it  had  been  since  1820,  when  Calhoun 
saw  his  great  mistake.  New  England  was  divided  on  the 
issue  ;  the  manufacturing  portion  favoring,  and  the  agricul- 
tural and  shipping  interests  opposing,  increased  protection. 
Webster  uttered  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  his  section  by 
a  powerful  speech  against  protection  in  general.  The  Mid- 
dle States  and  the  West,  with  Pennsylvania  in  the  front,  led 
the  forces  for  the  Bill.  That  State  wanted  more  encour- 
agement on  iron.  Kentucky  wanted  further  protection  on 
hemp  and  whiskey.  Louisiana  demanded  higher  taxes  on 
molasses  and  sugar.  Ohio  wanted  wool  protected.  Mas- 
sachusetts now  liked  a  tariff  on  woollens  and  cottons. 

But  though  each  State  favored  and  would  vote  for  pro- 
tection on  some  one  or  more  articles,  they  were  all  as 
clearly  opposed  to  protection  on  all  other  articles.  New 
England  could  see  no  public  advantage  of  a  tax  on  sugar, 
Pennsylvania  on  hemp,  Louisiana  on  iron,  or  Ohio  on  cot- 
ton fabrics.  But  so  skilfully  was  the  potion  mixed  that  the 
sweetness  in  the  aggregate  exceeded  the  bitterness,  and  the 
several  industries,  by  pooling  their  interests,  secured  its 
adoption  by  a  close  vote  of  one  hundred  and  seven  to  one 
hundred  and  two. 


42  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

On  cottons  the  minimum  was  raised  to  thirty  cents.  On 
woollens  it  was  for  the  first  time  applied,  and  was  fixed  at 
thirty-three  cents.  Bar-iron,  to  offset  the  cheapness  of  the 
new  processes  in  England,  was  raised  to  eighteen  dollars  a 
ton  if  forged,  and  to  thirty  dollars  if  rolled.  Raw  wool 
was  taxed  twenty  per  cent  the  first  year,  twenty-five  the 
second,  and  thirty  thereafter.  Molasses  got  ten  cents  a 
gallon,  and  hemp  went  up  from  thirty  dollars  to  forty-five 
dollars  a  ton.  The  average  duty  on  all  articles  taxed  by 
the  Clay  Tariff,  as  officially  reported,  was  thirty-seven  per 
cent. 

It  would  now  be  supposed  that  the  question  was  settled, 
at  least  for  a  term  of  years.  If  discontent  should  find  a 
voice,  it  would  certainly  come  from  the  enemies,  and  not 
from  the  friends,  of  protection.  The  unexpected  is  exactly 
what  happened.  The  high-tariff  interests  were  still  far  from 
being  satisfied,  especially  as  regarded  woollen  fabrics ;  and 
the  tariff  was  less  than  a  year  old  when  a  persistent  agitation 
was  begun,  which  continued  during  all  the  time  it  was  in 
force.  The  tariff  was  described  by  the  woollen  manufac- 
turers and  by  the  journals  favoring  them  as  "  our  present 
ruinous  system,"  as  though  no  concession  in  their  direction 
had  been  made.  England  had  lowered  her  duties  on  wool 
to  a  penny  a  pound.  This  was  taken  as  an  evidence  of  her 
desire  to  prostrate  American  industry,  since  she  could  now 
more  successfully  compete  in  our  markets.  Hence  it  was 
the  opinion  of  the  woollen  manufacturers  that  it  was  desira- 
ble to  raise  still  higher  the  duties  on  woollens,  in  order  to 
protect  ourselves  from  any  benefit  which  this  voluntary  re- 
duction on  the  part  of  England  would  have  brought  us. 

Accordingly,  a  National  Convention  was  held  at  Harris- 
burg  in  1827,  to  consider  measures  for  promoting  manu- 
factures; It  adopted  resolutions  favoring  more  protection 
on  iron,  wool,  woollens,  hemp,  steel,  and  glass.  It  was  the 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  43 

most  vigorous  attempt  ever  made  to  dictate  a  course  to 
Congress  avowedly  in  the  interest  of  specified  industries. 
So  ill-concealed  was  the  purpose  to  coerce  Congress  that 
it  called  forth  a  denunciation  on  the  floor  of  the  House 
from  Buchanan,  always  a  protectionist,  then  a  Congress- 
man, and  afterward  President. 

Such  was  the  state  of  affairs  when  our  fourth  tariff  was 
passed,  in  1828,  known  as  the  "  Adams  Tariff,"  but  called  by 
its  enemies,  and  sometimes  in  history,  the  "  Tariff  of  Abomi- 
nations." It  was  based  upon  the  demands  of  the  Convention 
at  Harrisburg.  Already  the  lobby  was  an  omnipotent  factor 
in  our  politics,  and  there  was  a  mighty  "  gathering  of  the 
clans  "  for  more  encouragement  to  their  pet  industries.  Now 
for  the  first  time  there  was  a  good  degree  of  coherency  in  the 
opinion  of  the  sections.  New  England  was  united  in  favor  of 
the  Bill.  Webster  basing  his  support  on  the  plea  that  since 
Massachusetts  had  been  led  into  manufactures  by  the  tariff 
of  1824,  her  industries  should  now  be  cared  for  by  the 
fostering  hand  of  Government.  The  Bill  was  recognized  as 
an  Adams  measure  ;  and  this  would  have  been  sufficient  of 
itself  to  secure  the  opposition  of  the  Jackson  faction,  though 
the  South  was  already  consistently  united  in  opposition  to 
protection  as  a  principle.  The  West,  though  it  was  without 
any  determined  bias  on  the  question,  was  quite  resolved, 
now  that  it  had  become  a  power  in  politics,  to  have  its 
share  of  favors,  if  Congress  should  choose  to  go  again  into 
a  distribution. 

It  was  foreseen  from  the  first  that  nothing  could  prevent 
the  passage  of  the  measure.  The  South,  unable  to  defeat 
the  Bill,  adopted  the  plan  of  loading  it  down  with  objec- 
tionable features,  with  the  hope  that  it  would  be  made  so 
bad  by  exaggerations  and  absurdities  that  it  would  disgust 
even  its  friends.  But  this  artifice  did  not  succeed,  since  the 
majority  either  rejected  the  amendments,  or  else  adopted 


44  JS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

them  in  good  faith  as  valuable  additions.  Thus  the  "Tariff 
of  Abominations  "  was  shaped  almost  as  much  by  the  per- 
verse policy  of  its  enemies  as  by  the  zeal  of  its  friends.  It 
passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  five  to 
ninety-four.  It  placed  a  specific  tax  of  four  cents  on  wool 
in  addition  to  forty  per  cent  ad  valorem.  The  minimum 
on  woollen  fabrics  was  fixed  at  one  dollar  per  square  yard. 
The  duties  averaged  forty-three  per  cent  along  the  whole 
line  of  dutiable  goods,  and  thirty-seven  per  cent  on  the 
entire  body  of  imports. 

The  clamor  of  the  Northern  protectionists  for  the  enact- 
ment of  the  tariff  was  as  nothing  in  comparison  with  the 
discontent  which  it  created  in  the  South.  That  section  was 
compelled  to  sell  in  an  open  market,  and  to  buy  in  a  pro- 
tected one.  Calhoun,  the  Vice-President,  hoped  to  win  the 
support  of  Jackson  to  secure  its  repeal;  and  when  this 
failed,  he  planted  in  our  politics  those  doctrines  of  Nullifi- 
cation and  Secession  which  were  uprooted  only  by  the 
storms  of  civil  war.  The  South  was  fully  aroused  ;  and  so 
violent  was  the  sectional  bitterness  that  the  integrity  of  the 
Union  was  threatened. 

Under  these  circumstances,  in  1833,  our  fifth  tariff  was 
passed,  called  the  "  Compromise  Tariff."  The  presidential 
election  was  just  over.  Clay  went  into  the  canvass  against 
Jackson  as  an  advocate  of  high  protection.  He  was  beaten 
in  the  race.  The  country  seemed  to  have  spoken  against 
protection,  and  Congress  spent  the  entire  winter  in  wrangles 
over  the  tariff.  Finally,  near  the  end  of  the  session,  Clay 
proposed  a  new  Bill  as  a  substitute  for  all  others.  Calhoun's 
support  was  secured,  and  the  united  influence  of  the  two 
was  sufficient  to  carry  it  through  against  the  high  protec- 
tionists, led  by  Webster.  It  went  into  effect  just  in  time  to 
prevent  the  hostile  collision  between  South  Carolina  and 
the  General  Government  over  the  Nullification  troubles. 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  45 

The  law  provided  for  a  gradual  reduction  of  all  duties  above 
twenty  per  cent  till  they  should  reach  that  figure  on  the 
home  valuation.  This  was  what  is  called  a  "  horizontal 
tariff."  Under  its  operation  the  duties  were  slowly  low- 
ered, and  for  the  nine  years  of  its  existence  they  averaged 
thirty-two  per  cent.  This  tariff,  as  its  name  implies,  was 
a  mere  political  expedient,  —  a  makeshift  forced  through 
Congress  on  the  eve  of  adjournment,  without  much  reference 
either  to  public  or  private  interests. 

Our  next  tariff,  the  sixth,  was  passed  in  1842,  and  is 
known  as  the  "  Whig  Tariff."  The  commercial  crash  of  1837, 
with  the  hard  times  which  followed,  was  the  immediate  cause 
of  its  adoption.  It  was  considered  the  business  of  legisla- 
tion to  remove  financial  distress.  The  stump-orators  of 
the  hard-cider  campaign  of  1840  held  out  extravagant 
promises  if  Harrison  should  reach  the  White  House.  The 
boast  that  the  Millennium  would  come  in  at  the  ascendency 
of  the  Whigs,  together  with  the  hardness  of  the  times, 
caused  a  popular  revolt  against  the  Democrats ;  and  the 
campaign  was,  from  first  to  last,  a  triumphant  success  for 
the  Whigs.  They  were  not  unanimous  for  protection,  nor 
were  the  Democrats  united  for  a  revenue  tariff.  Public 
opinion  did  not  warrant  high  duties,  and  the  average  was 
but  little  above  that  of  the  preceding  tariff.  The  Whig 
Tariff  lasted  but  four  years.  It  was  not  expected  to  last. 
It  has  been  aptly  termed  "  a  mere  eddy  in  the  now  steady 
stream  of  opinion  setting  toward  free  trade." 

The  year  1 846  was  made  memorable  in  the  history  of 
economic  legislation  by  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  in 
England  and  the  adoption  of  the  "Walker  Tariff"  in  Amer- 
ica. In  the  presidential  year  1844  Clay  was  again,  and  for 
the  last  time,  the  candidate  of  the  protectionists.  The  can- 
didate of  the  friends  of  low  tariff  was  James  K.  Polk.  The 
canvass  turned  largely  on  this  question,  and  the  Sage  of 


46  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

Ashland  met  his  Waterloo.  It  appeared  that  protection 
was  at  an  end,  and  that  America  was  keeping  an  even  step 
with  England  in  the  march  to  free  trade.  Folk's  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  was  Robert  J.  Walker,  from  whom  the 
tariff  was  named.  After  a  discussion  of  great  intensity, 
the  Bill  passed  by  small  majorities.  It  applied  the  hori- 
zontal principle,  though  it  discriminated  between  goods 
that  could  be  produced  at  home  and  those  that  could  not. 
It  was  "  a  revenue  tariff  with  incidental  protection."  It  re- 
sembled the  Hamilton  Tariff,  though  its  duties  were  higher, 
averaging  twenty-three  per  cent  on  all  dutiable  goods. 

Walker  had  learned,  and  it  soon  became  apparent  to  all, 
that  moderate  duties  yield  large  revenue  ;  and  this  tariff, 
which  was  estimated  to  yield  $20,000,000  a  year,  placed 
over  $60,000,000  in  the  treasury  in  1856.  In  this  respect 
it  was  the  most  successful  of  our  tariffs,  so  that  revenues 
largely  exceeded  the  expenditures.  Reductions  were 
therefore  made  in  the  duties  in  1857,  so  that  revenues  fell 
below  the  necessary  expenditure. 

The  tariff  existed  for  fifteen  years.  During  that  time  the 
country  made  most  rapid  advances  in  wealth,  and  there 
arose  a  strong  sentiment  in  favor  of  an  entire  abandonment 
of  customs-duties,  and  a  resort  to  direct  taxation  as  the 
true  fiscal  policy  for  the  nation  as  for  the  States.  During 
most  of  these  years  the  Mexican  war  and  the  slavery  ques- 
tion absorbed  attention,  so  that  tariffs  and  economic  con- 
siderations were  foreign  to  the  public  mind.  The  things 
of  paramount  importance  were  the  presidential  campaigns, 
the  integrity  of  the  Union,  and  "  the  tremendous  issue  of 
civil  war." 

The  year  1861  witnessed  the  passage  of  the  "Morrill 
Tariff,"  which,  though  often  modified,  still  remains  in  force. 
The  political  party  which  carried  Lincoln  to  the  presidency 
in  1860  had  adopted  in  its  platform  a  mildly  drawn  reso- 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  47 

lution  in  favor  of  protection,  though  such  was  the  excite- 
ment of  the  time  on  the  slavery  question  that  little  was 
said  in  the  canvass  about  tariffs.  Seven  of  the  States  se- 
ceded during  the  winter,  and  the  country  was  steadily 
drifting  toward  war. 

This  tariff,  whose  author  was  Justin  S.  Morrill,  represen- 
tative and  afterwards  senator  from  Vermont,  went  into 
effect  April  i,  1861,  and  raised  duties  about  one  third  over 
the  Walker  Tariff  as  it  stood  in  1860.  As  first  passed,  the 
Act  looked  chiefly  to  revenue,  and  not  directly  to  protection. 
But  in  August  of  the  same  year  there  was  a  revision  of  the 
Act,  when  it  assumed  some  protective  features.  Another 
change,  still  upward,  was  made  in  December.  Thus  from 
year  to  year  there  were  further  changes  in  the  tariff,  every 
one  being  an  increase  of  duties.  The  necessity  for  large 
revenues  was  so  urgent,  when  the  army  was  costing  a  mil- 
lion dollars  a  day,  that  the  tariff  was  made  to  cover  almost 
everything,  and  the  people,  being  wholly  absorbed  in  the 
war,  and  seeing  the  need  of  heavy  taxes,  patiently  sub- 
mitted. The  tariff  became  more  and  more  protective  at 
every  change,  so  great  was  the  influence  of  the  Congres- 
sional lobby,  and  so  importunate  were  the  chief  manufact- 
uring interests  in  their  demands  for  recognition. 

After  the  close  of  the  war  the  plea  for  revenue  was  cast 
aside,  and  the  necessity  of  protection  to  industry  was 
plainly  declared.  This  tidal  wave  of  protection  reached  its 
culmination  in  1868,  when  the  duties  averaged  48.7  per 
cent  on  dutiable  goods,  and  46.6  per  cent  on  the  entire 
volume  of  imports.  There  were  2,317  distinct  rates  as- 
sessed on  as  many  different  articles  or  grades.  The 
amount  of  free  imports  was  only  5  per  cent  of  the  entire 
imports.  In  that  year  window-glass  paid  49  per  cent ; 
pig-iron,  55;  plain  cottons,  58;  spool-cotton,  66;  salt, 
81 ;  blankets,  82;  wool,  108;  carpets,  109. 


48  S-S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

In  1871  occurred  the  first  substantial  reduction,  when 
$26,000.000  in  taxes  were  taken  off,  not  from  protected 
articles,  but  from  those  yielding  revenue,  as  tea,  coffee,  and 
sugar.  In  1872,  on  the  eve  of  a  presidential  election, 
Congress  put  tea,  coffee,  and  some  other  articles  on  the 
free  list,  and  made  a  reduction  of  ten  per  cent  on  most 
of  the  protected .  articles.  But  so  great  was  the  clamor  of 
these  industries,  which  had  thus  lost  one  tenth  of  their 
encouragement,  that  the  tax  was  restored  two  years  later. 
Thus  from  year  to  year  the  existing  tariff  has  been  recast 
by  Congress,  which  sometimes  slightly  reduced,  and  at 
other  times  decidedly  increased,  the  taxes.  In  the  aggre- 
gate there  was  but  little  reduction  from  those  of  1868. 

In  consequence  of  a  wide-spread  dissatisfaction  with 
these  high  taxes,  Congress  authorized,  and  the  President 
appointed,  in  1882  a  Tariff  Commission,  composed  of 
nine  members  from  civil  life,  all  of  whom,  except  one,  were 
protectionists,  and  most  of  whom  were  personally  interested 
in  protected  industries,  to  make  the  tour  of  the  country, 
gather  information,  hear  the  sentiments  of  the  people,  and 
propose  to  the  next  session  of  Congress  revised  schedules 
of  duties.  Their  Report  increased  the  free  list  in  unimpor- 
tant articles,  and  changed  the  rate  on  the  others.  After 
lengthy  discussion,  during  which  time  the  lobby  was  most 
clamorous  and  unblushing,  Congress,  through  resort  to  a 
Committee  of  Conference,  reached  an  agreement  on  March 
4,  1883,  the  last  day  of  the  last  session  of  the  Forty- 
seventh  Congress.  By  this  Act  the  free  list  was  increased, 
and  the  number  of  specified  articles  -on  which  protection 
was  retained  was  reduced  to  1,570,  under  631  rates. 
The  duty  reported  by  the  Commission  was  adopted  in 
459  cases,  and  changed  in  172.  Of  these  latter,  the  rate 
was  lowered  on  98,  and  raised  on  74. 

Thus  in  our  national  history  we  have  had  eight  tariffs, 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  49 

with  numerous  modifications  of  each,  —  more  than  forty  in 
all.  Since  1 789,  when  Washington  became  President,  we 
have  lived  forty-two  years  under  a  tariff  drawn  chiefly  for 
revenue.  Moderate  protection  has  prevailed  for  twenty- 
one  years,  and  high  protection  for  thirty-six  years.  We 
have  never  had  absolute  free  trade.  During  most  of  that 
time  the  tariff  issue  had  some  degree  of  prominence  in  the 
Congressional  debates,  and  frequently  the  feeling,  both  offi- 
cial and  private,  attained  great  intensity.  After  a  century 
of  discussion,  the  question  as  to  what  is  the  true  fiscal 
policy  of  our  nation  is  yet,  at  least  in  the  popular  appre- 
hension, an  unsolved  problem. 


CHAPTER  V. 

SOME    LESSONS    FOR    THE    PRESENT    FROM    THE 
TARIFFS    OF    THE    PAST. 

T  is  interesting  to  note,  though  it  may  be  merely 
a  coincidence,  that  the  year  1776  witnessed 
both  the  independence  of  the  United  States 
and  the  publication  in  England  of  Adam 
Smith's  "Wealth  of  Nations."  The  former  was  a  politi- 
cal, and  the  latter  a  literary,  revolt  from  the  errors  of  the 
Mercantile  and  Colonial  Systems.  They  were  two  vigorous 
pleas,  one  from  Independence  Hall,  and  the  other  from  the 
astute  Scotchman,  for  untrammelled  commerce. 

For  some  years  after  independence  the  ambassadors  of 
the  United  States  made  every  effort  to  secure  treaties  of 
free  exchange  with  European  nations.  The  Colonial  Sys- 
tem had  given  them  all  the  restriction  they  wished.  Eng- 
land would  not  grant  reciprocity,  either  because  she  was 
yet  smarting  under  the  loss  of  her  colonies,  or  because  she 
expected  still  to  control  the  American  trade.  So  desira- 
ble was  a  treaty  of  free  commerce  with  England  that  the 
American  minister,  John  Adams,  tried  for  years  under  the 
Confederation  to  accomplish  it;  but,  disgusted  with  his 
failure,  he  recommended  that  we  too  should  set  up  restric- 
tions, in  order  that  we  might  purchase  free  trade  with  Eng- 
land by  offering  to  remove  our  own  impediments  thereto. 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  51 

It  was  the  old  expedient  of  retaliation.  Since  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  gave  Congress  no  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations,  the  States  alone  could  act  upon 
such  advice.  Massachusetts  adopted  the  suggestion  of  Ad- 
ams, but  found  that  it  drove  trade  away  to  the  neighboring 
ports.  Virginia  did  the  same,  but  found  that  she  thereby 
benefited  Maryland  and  the  Carolinas.  These  things,  to- 
gether with  certain  commercial  differences  between  the 
States,  not  only  were  the  immediate  causes  of  the  drafting  of 
the  present  Constitution,  but  they  show  how  desirable  the 
founders  of  the  Government  thought  free  commerce  to 
be,  and  that  restriction  was  originally  entered  upon  as  a 
temporary  expedient  for  securing  the  largest  liberty  in 
trade  in  the  end.  Nothing  can  be  more  false,  in  the 
light  of  history,  than  the  teaching  that  the  country  was 
ruined  by  free  trade  under  the  Confederation,  and  that 
the  Constitution  was  made  to  save  the  nation  by  giving 
protection. 

From  the  very  first,  the  tariff  legislation  under  the  Con- 
stitution has  been  shaped  and  dictated  by  the  great  pro- 
tected interests.  The  late  President  Garfield  told  Professor 
A.  L.  Perry,  of  Williams  College,  that  while  he  was  on  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  in  Congress,  "  the  indi- 
viduals and  delegations  who  came  before  the  Committee  to 
get  new  duties  put  on  or  old  ones  raised,  came  with  the 
barest  selfishness,  and  without  a  thought  or  a  care  but  for 
the  extra  price  of  their  products."  l  It  should  be  a  hu- 
miliating thought  to  every  American  that  our  legislation, 
especially  in  a  matter  so  vital  as  taxation,  has  been  so 
largely  and  so  openly  controlled  by  the  great  "  interests." 
It  would  appear  that  the  average  Congressman  has  but 
little  power  to  resist  the  importunities  of  "  a  strong  vested 
interest "  or  a  clamorous  Congressional  lobby.  It  may  be 

1  See  Perry's  Political  Economy,  p.  479. 


52  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

historically  demonstrated  that  there  never  has  bee*^  a  tariff 
Bill  enacted  by  the  American  Congress  for  purposes  of 
protection  that  was  not  shaped,  manipulated,  and  passed 
under  the  clamorous  dictation  of  the  very  men  who  ex- 
pected to  reap  profit  by  getting  an  artificial  price  for  their 
goods  at  the  expense  of  all  the  rest  of  their  countrymen. 
As  Samson's  strength  was  in  his  hair,  the  strength  of  pro- 
tection has  always  been,  and  still  is,  in  the  greed  of  men 
who  expected  to  be  enriched  by  this  legislative  levy  upon 
the  savings  of  others. 

But  although  the  protected  industries  have  always  con- 
trolled tariff  legislation,  there  has  always  been  a  war  of 
interests  between  them.  An  endless  struggle  for  govern- 
ment aid  began  even  under  our  first  revenue  tariff  of  1789. 
The  South,  in  which  the  planting  interest  was  supreme, 
opposed  the  tax  on  steel  and  iron.  New  England  wanted 
a  tax  on  rum  as  a  protection  to  her  distilleries ;  but  the 
South  opposed  it  because  that  section  imported  rum  from 
the  West  Indies  in  payment  for  lumber.  The  New  England 
States  from  the  first  advocated  the  enactment  of  naviga- 
tion laws  to  favor  their  shipping  interests,  —  as  though  the 
country  had  not  been  protesting  for  years  against  that  very 
thing,  or  as  though  the  restrictions  on  shipping  which  were 
so  destructive  to  our  interests  when  applied  by  England, 
could  be  greatly  beneficial  when  voted  by  ourselves  !  All 
other  parts  of  the  country  opposed  these  laws  as  being 
harmful  to  their  interests  as  buyers  and  not  importers  of 
foreign  goods. 

This  conflict  of  interests  and  sections  has  been  a  prom- 
inent feature  in  the  inner  history  of  all  our  tariffs  down  to 
the  present  hour.  From  the  Hamilton  Tariff  to  the 
Morrill,  so  little  respect  was  had  for  consistency  in  action 
or  for  merit  inherent  in  the  Bill  that  the  very  men  who 
insisted  on  high  duties  on  what  their  constituents  produced, 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  53 

argued^-^jpr  low  taxes  on  what  they  would  have  to  buy. 
Sometimes  this  conflict  has  been  merely  an  acrimonious 
and  shameful  scramble  for  government  favor,  —  producers 
of  raw  material  clamoring  for  higher  duties ;  importers 
opposing  high  duties  as  checking  consumption,  and  thereby 
prostrating  their  interests ;  manufacturers  demanding  higher 
rates  on  finished  products,  but  lower  ones  or  none  at  all  on 
raw  material  used  by  them.  There  have  been  times  when 
the  committee-rooms  of  Congress  and  the  floor  of  the 
House  appeared  to  be  the  scene  of  a  mob-like  tussle  to 
see  which  industry  and  which  section  would  win  the  lion's 
share  of  favors  in  the  general  distribution,  and  thereby  be 
most  successful  in  plundering  all  the  rest. 

Perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  example  of  this  occurred 
in  the  closing  days  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  in  1883. 
Both  lobbyists  and  members  threw  off  the  idea  of  argument 
on  the  basis  of  good  to  the  country,  and  in  the  hot  rivalry 
of  the  various  interests  urged  the  single  plea  that  they 
would  be  compelled  to  go  direct  to  bankruptcy  unless 
prices  were  stiffened  by  higher  taxes.  It  appeared  that 
almost  every  member  had  his  special  interest  to  advance ; 
and  hence  reductions  were  stoutly  resisted  and  advances 
as  strenuously  insisted  on,  to  secure  an  artificial  price  to  be 
paid  by  the  consumers  of  the  nation.  Citizens  burning 
with  patriotism  rushed  to  Washington  to  look  after  the  main 
chance  of  Number  One.  Statesmanship  consisted  in  each 
man  building  with  one  hand  his  own  special  Chinese  wall 
of  taxation  in  the  interests  of  a  class  of  his  constituents  as 
producers,  and  in  pulling  down  with  the  other  hand  the  wall 
of  every  other  man  in  the  interests  of  all  the  rest  of  his 
people  as  consumers.  Congress  was  a  puppet  in  the  hands 
of  a  clamorous  lobby.  Pennsylvania,  always  in  the  front 
when  a  tariff  is  to  be  adopted  or  amended,  never  ceased  to 
demand  a  retention  of  the  high  rates  on  iron  and  steel, 


54  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

\ 
while,  strangely  in  contrast  with  this  zeal,  her  statesmen 

showed  the  greatest  apathy  when  it  was  proposed  to  protect 
other  articles  which  her  people  consume,  but  do  not  pro- 
duce. Ohio  led  the  clamor  for  protection  on  raw  wool ; 
Massachusetts,  on  woollen  goods ;  Vermont,  on  marble ; 
New  York,  on  salt ;  Michigan,  on  copper ;  Maine,  on 
lumber ;  Louisiana,  on  sugar  and  molasses ;  Virginia,  on 
tobacco,  —  and  thence  on  to  the  end  of  the  list.  This  war 
of  interests,  now  nearly  a  century  in  duration,  teaches  that 
protection  is  recognized  as  harmful  in  the  aggregate,  even 
by  its  advocates.  The  average  Congressman  has  always 
voted  for  forty  provisions  deemed  by  him  harmful,  if  the 
Bill  did  but  coddle  sufficiently  his  own  specialty. 

The  fact  is  that  no  tariff  legislation  for  protective  pur- 
poses has  ever  been  possible  in  the  United  States  except 
through  a  compromise  of  interests.  The  various  industries 
seeking  protection  have  in  every  instance  "pooled  their 
issues  "  and  met  each  other  in  a  spirit  of  concession,  ignor- 
ing the  injury  in  order  to  secure  the  benefits  coveted  by 
each.  There  is  no  other  way  possible  to  spread  the  mantle 
of  protection  over  such  diverse  and  antagonistic  interests. 
To  be  successful,  every  tariff  Bill  proposed  for  protective 
purposes  must  favor  a  long  list  of  industries,  and  thereby 
control  a  majority  of  Congressional  votes.  The  Morrill 
Tariff  is  an  excellent  illustration  of  this.  After  one  of  the 
seventeen  successful  Bills  for  its  revision  had  passed,  Senator 
James  W.  Grimes,  of  Iowa,  wrote  as  follows  :  "  You  may  rely 
upon  what  I  say  when  I  tell  you  that  there  were  not  three 
men  in  the  Senate  whose  honest  convictions  were  for  the 
Bill.  They  voted  for  it  by  a  sort  of  coercion,  —  one,  because 
wool  was  in  it ;  another,  because  iron  was  in  it ;  another, 
because  lumber  was  in  it ;  another,  because  it  contained  a 
drawback  on  ship  materials,  etc. :  but  all  condemning  it  as 
an  entirety."  Evidence  of  this  kind  is  abundant  on  every 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  55 

hand.  Merit  in  a  tariff  Bill  is  not  the  thing  that  wins.  Its 
success  hinges  on  such  an  adroit  recognition  of  interests, 
and  such  a  skilful  balancing  of  favors,  as  to  coerce  a  ma- 
jority of  the  votes.  It  may  not  be  considered  a  crime  in 
Congressmen  that  they  should  vote  for  a  hundred  harmful 
features  of  a  Bill,  since  there  is  no  other  possible  way  to 
secure  the  one  great  benefit  which  their  constituents  de- 
mand. But  the  inquiry  may  well  arise  in  the  mind  of  every 
American  voter  :  Is  it  possible  that  a  system  which  always, 
and  of  necessity,  compels  practices  of  such  questionable 
propriety  can  lie  within  the  scope  of  honest  and  beneficial 
legislation  ? 

Protection  in  this  country  began  avowedly  in  the  interests 
of  a  class,  —  the  shoe-manufacturers  of  Lynn.  They  found 
difficulty  in  competing  with  the  foreign-made  goods,  and 
hence,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Madison,  afterward  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  a  petition  to  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts  was  drafted  and  numerously  signed,  asking 
for  a  tax  on  foreign  shoes.  The  Legislature  indorsed  the 
petition  and  sent  its  own  petition  to  Congress,  and  that 
body  enacted  the  law.  This  Act  was  supplemental  to  the 
Hamilton  Tariff,  passed  two  years  before,  and  was  the  first 
distinctly  protective  measure  ever  enacted  by  Congress. 
From  that  day  to  this  the  tariff  has  been  the  most  con- 
spicuous illustration  of  class-legislation  to  be  found  in  all 
our  Congressional  annals.  This  is  not  an  accident.  It  is 
in  the  nature  of  things  ;  for  though  the  classes  have  some- 
times been  rather  numerous,  the  precise  amount  of  encour- 
agement to  be  accorded  to  each  has  always  been  a  matter 
of  separate  consideration  and  adjustment.  Class-legislation 
has  always  been  considered  the  most  odious  kind  of  lawr 
making,  since  it  proceeds  upon  the  practice  of  discrimina- 
tion and  partiality.  Yet  it  remains  with  us  to-day  as  a 
necessary  part  of  the  protective  system. 


56  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

A  study  of  our  tariff  history  shows  how  protective 
schedules  spring  up  and  grow.  Shoe-making  received  an 
impetus  from  the  first  protective  Act,  when  other  manufac- 
turers, with  a  keen  eye  to  business,  sought  to  receive  for 
their  interests  a  similar  discrimination.  Thus  the  list  grew 
in  length,  the  duties  being  adjusted  to  meet  the  supposed 
necessities  of  the  American  manufacturers.  Sometimes  the 
home-producer  would  not  at  once  have  been  relieved  of 
foreign  competition  without  such  duties.  Sometimes,  on 
the  other  hand,  they  were  simply  an  offset  to  the  ignorance 
and  unthrift  of  the  manufacturers.  The  producers  of  raw 
materials  have  never  been  far  behind  the  makers  of  finished 
products  in  the  race  for  government  bounties.  This  in 
turn  nullified  a  portion  of  the  benefits  granted  to  manu- 
facturers, so  that  there  has  always  been  another  well-founded 
demand  from  the  latter  class  to  be  indemnified  for  the 
increased  price  of  their  raw  materials.  Thus  the  pyramid 
of  protection,  standing  on  its  apex  like  a  growing  polyp, 
has  loomed  upward  from  year  to  year,  the  figures  mounting 
higher,  while  the  list  of  articles  lengthened,  till  there  arose 
a  legal  barrier  to  trade  so  high  that  the  lower-priced  pro- 
ducts of  Europe  could  with  the  greatest  difficulty  overleap 
it  to  bring  the  boon  of  cheap  goods  to  the  American  con- 
sumers. When  there  comes  a  revolt  of  opinion  against 
this  state  of  things,  as  there  always  has  come  at  intervals, 
the  platform  of  high  protection  is  abandoned,  and  the 
downward  steps  are  taken  toward  unobstructed  exchange. 

Our  experience,  as  under  the  Walker  Tariff,  has  shown 
that  low  duties,  laid  chiefly  for  revenue,  will  produce  a 
steady  and  reliable  stream  of  income.  But  when  the  duties 
are  placed  high  for  purposes  of  protection,  as  under  the 
Morrill  Tariff,  they  will  at  one  time  be  entirely  prohibitory, 
and  make  the  home-producer  a  monopolist ;  at  another  time 
they  will  be  simply  protective,  both  foreign  and  domestic 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  57 

sellers  entering  our  markets  at  the  enhanced  price ;  at  an- 
other time  they  will  be  nearly  non -protective,  yielding  rev- 
enue alone.  This  condition  springs  from  the  fluctuations 
in  the  price  of  goods  both  here  and  in  Europe,  and  from 
the  inflexible  nature  of  tariffs.  Hence  protection  as  a 
system  is  so  unbending  and  so  at  variance  with  the  self- 
regulating  course  of  all  free  exchange  that  scarcely  a  Con- 
gress passes  without  recasting  the  tariff,  which  was  perhaps 
well  balanced  at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  but  which  within 
a  few  months  fell  out  of  harmony  with  the  state  of  trade. 
In  ancient  mythology  Sisyphus  was  condemned  by  the 
gods  to  roll  a  huge  stone  to  the  top  of  a  mountain.  Just 
as  he  had  with  infinite  toil  placed  it  in  position,  it  was  fated 
to  break  away  from  him  and  roll  to  the  valley  below.  Thus 
his  labor  was  without  end.  The  efforts  of  protectionists  to 
place  and  keep  the  tariff  in  proper  position  with  reference 
to  the  industries  of  the  country  remind  one  of  this  end- 
less toil  of  Sisyphus. 

Those  thirty  words  of  Hartley,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the 
First  Congress,  contained  the  very  soul  of  the  issue  in  all 
subsequent  contests.  He  demanded  protection  "without 
oppressing  other  parts  of  the  country."  The  lesson  of  in- 
struction is  the  concession  that  the  nature  of  protection  is 
to  "  oppress  other  parts  of  the  country."  Sometimes  pro- 
tectionists deny  this  in  their  guarded  utterances,  but  they 
never  do  in  their  acts  ;  their  position  being  that  while  pro- 
tection is  a  harmful  tax  on  some  industries,  it  is  so  mani- 
festly an  advantage  in  others  that  its  influence  in  the 
aggregate  is  beneficial.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the 
correctness  of  this  conclusion,  the  concession  which  accom- 
panies it  is  so  unquestionably  true  that  it  marks  protection 
as  a  partial  and  discriminating  system,  which  blesses  some 
and  curses  others. 

It  was  so  distinctly  admitted  in  the  early  history  of  our  tariff 


58  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

legislation  that  protection  is  harmful  in  at  least  some  of  its 
features  as  to  be  conceded  by  its  friends  that  it  should 
be  merely  a  temporary  measure,  and  should  be  tolerated 
only  so  long  as  might  be  necessary  to  place  struggling  in- 
dustries upon  a  basis  of  self-support.  This  was  the  opin- 
ion of  Hamilton,  the  father  of  protection.  It  was  the 
judgment  of  Henry  Clay,  expressed  on  many  occasions, 
that  protection  should  not  be  extended  to  every  industry, 
but  only  to  those  of  national  importance.  Nowhere  in  the 
speeches  or  the  writings  of  the  fathers  do  we  find  protection 
advocated  as  a  system  that  can  be  wisely  made  universal  in 
its  application,  or  permanent  in  its  duration.  Even  as  late 
as  1 86 1  Congress  began  and  carried  into  effect  the  most 
extensive  system  of  taxation  ever  attempted,  on  the  plea  of 
necessity  for  revenue.  The  country  bore  the  burden  with- 
out complaint,  since  it  was  a  matter  of  vital  importance  to 
have  large  incomes  to  furnish  momentum  to  the  war.  It 
was  a  patriotic  duty  to  pay  the  taxes ;  and  the  enormous 
burden  met  the  public  approval  for  this  reason  alone. 

It  was  not  till  peace  returned  that  any  prominence  was 
given  to  the  argument  that  protection  is  beneficial  in  itself, 
and  should  therefore  be  made  the  settled  policy  of  the  na- 
tion. But  even  during  the  war  the  idea  of  revenue  was 
abandoned  in  practice,  though  not  in  theory.  There  were 
not  wanting  many  capitalists  who  stood  ready  to  enter 
upon  the  manufacture  of  everything  known  to  trade,  if  they 
could  only  be  guaranteed  against  loss  at  the  public  expense. 
To  favor  these,  the  rates  of  duties  were  raised  to  a  point 
above  that  at  which  the  maximum  of  revenue  was  attaina- 
ble, and  thus  the  tariff  was  already  fully  in  accord  with  the 
wishes  of  the  most  radical  of  the  protectionists.  Thus  the 
people,  absorbed  in  their  affairs  at  home,  have  allowed 
the  matters  of  taxation  and  revenue  to  be  manipulated  by 
the  cunning  and  the  selfish  in  their  own  interests.  Of  the 


SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  59 

more  than  twenty  years  since  the  return  of  peace,  five  were 
years  of  business  depression  unprecedented  within  the 
memory  of  living  men,  during  which  time  the  mountain  of 
protection  was  still  supported  by  the  struggling  masses  in 
the  interests  of  the  favored  few.  And  to-day,  in  a  time  of 
profound  peace,  that  system,  which  in  all  our  history  has 
been  regarded  as  temporary,  as  having  reference  to  the 
time  of  its  own  extinction,  and  as  an  evil  to  be  submitted  to 
for  certain  supposed  objects  of  importance,  with  revenues 
more  than  $100,000,000  annually  in  excess  of  our  extrava- 
gant expenditures,  — 'that  system  is  now  declared  to  be  the 
wise,  mature,  and  final  fiscal  policy  of  the  nation. 

In  one  or  two  respects  the  Morrill  Tariff  has  scored  a 
brilliant  success  for  its  doctrinaires.  It  has  so  raised  prices 
as  to  offer  but  little  barrier  to  importation,  as  will  be  shown. 
This  fact  has  both  enriched  the  protected  manufacturer,  and 
yielded  revenue  in  excess  of  our  extravagant  needs.  This 
surplus  revenue,  however,  has  been  a  source  of  embarrass- 
ment to  the  protectionists  in  Congress.  It  was  more  in- 
convenient than  a  deficiency.  It  directed,  like  a  sign-post, 
the  public  attention  to  the  unnecessary  burdens  of  the 
people. 

At  first  it  was  proposed  to  spirit  away  the  surplus  by 
river  and  harbor  appropriations.  A  college  professor,  under 
the  smoke-stacks  of  Pennsylvania,  proposed  to  bribe  the 
people  with  their  own  money  by  returning  the  surplus  pro 
rata  to  the  States.  Another  proposed  to  build  up  levees  on 
the  Mississippi.  Another  hoped  to  capture  the  assent  of 
the  educated  classes  by  proposing  to  endow  the  States  pro 
rata  to  their  illiteracy  with  millions  for  educational  purposes. 
But  what  was  actually  done?  First,  the  income-tax  was 
stricken  off,  at  the  demands  of  the  wealthy  and  influential. 
Then  nearly  all  the  excises  were  repealed,  one  after  another. 
Then  tea,  spices,  and  most  other  articles  which  yield  revenue 


6O  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

but  no  protection,  were  placed  on  the  free-list.  Then  the 
revenue  tax  was  stricken  from  coffee,  under  the  plausible  but 
misleading  plea  of  "  a  cheap  breakfast-table  for  the  labor- 
ing-man." In  1883  about  twelve  million  dollars  a  year 
was  lifted  from  the  broad  shoulders  of  the  bankers  by  the 
repeal  of  the  tax  on  bank  deposits  and  checks.  Protective 
taxes  were  almost  untouched.  Thus  the  record  shows 
that  by  extravagant  appropriations  on  one  hand,  and  the 
remission  of  revenue  taxes  on  the  other,  more  room  was 
made  for  the  system  of  subsidies  and  favoritism.  But  the 
burdens  imposed  by  protection  remain  to  this  hour  almost 
as  heavy  as  they  have  been  at  all. 

Protection  has  been  called  the  "American  System." 
Henry  Clay  is  responsible  for  the  misnomer.  In  the  early 
days,  as  we  have  seen,  free  trade  or  reciprocity  was  ear- 
nestly desired  with  other  nations.  But  some  of  the  nations, 
as  England,  would  not  enter  into  reciprocal  relations ;  and 
hence  the  plan  of  laying  countervailing  duties  to  compel 
reciprocity  came,  after  a  time,  to  be  called  the  "  American 
System."  The  first  two  decades  of  this  century  was  a  time 
of  retaliation ;  and  there  was  scarcely  a  nation  whose  stat- 
ute-books were  not  blemished  by  provisions  to  injure  their 
neighbors.  On  May  3,  1815,  Congress,  in  order  to  secure 
the  greatest  freedom  of  exchange,  repealed  all  discriminat- 
ing duties  and  tonnage  taxes  in  favor  of  any  nation  which 
should  do  the  same  thing  in  favor  of  American  ships  and 
commerce.  It  was  not  till  1824  that  by  a  further  perver- 
sion the  name  was  applied  to  protective  duties.  Since  that 
day  the  name  has  been  given  to  protection,  as  though  it 
were  something  peculiarly  American,  —  a  new  product  of 
our  soil,  —  instead  of  being,  as  in  fact  it  is,  a  relic  borrowed 
from  the  fading  institutions  of  Europe. 

But  so  manifest  have  been  the  advantages  of  reciprocal 
free  trade  between  nations  that  our  Government,  even  when 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  6 1 

protection  was  in  the  ascendency,  has  not  ceased  to  favor 
treaties  of  reciprocity.  Our  treaty  with  France  in  1778, 
providing  for  free  exchange  between  the  two  countries, 
was  only  the  first  of  many.  Even  extreme  protectionists 
admit  that  unrestricted  exchange  between  our  country  and 
another  is  a  benefit  to  us,  except  in  the  case  where  a  for- 
eign country  can  "inundate  "  us  with  its  products  at  half 
price,  in  competition  with  our  own. 

We  had  reciprocity  with  Canada  for  twelve  years,  from 
1854  to  1866,  the  treaty  being  terminable  by  either  Govern- 
ment on  giving  notice,  which  the  United  States  did  in  the 
latter  year.  Thus  for  five  years,  even  under  the  Morrill 
Tariff,  we  had  reciprocal  and  partial  free  trade  with  our 
northern  neighbor,  —  to  the  acknowledged  advantage  of  both 
banks  of  the  St.  Lawrence.  It  would  probably  be  in  exist- 
ence to-day,  had  not  one  or  two  interests  on  this  side  clam- 
ored for  its  cancellation,  —  to  the  manifest  detriment  of  the 
entire  country.  At  the  present  time  we  have  a  treaty  of 
reciprocity  with  the  Sandwich  Islands.  Its  advantages  are 
generally  acknowledged  by  all  classes  of  political  opinion, 
and  by  all  interests,  —  unless  it  should  be  the  sugar-planters 
of  Louisiana. 

When  General  Grant  was  President,  he  was  zealously  in 
favor  of  the  purchase  of  San  Domingo,  giving  as  a  chief 
reason  therefor  that  we  could  then  have  free  trade  with  that 
sub-tropical  island.  It  is  now  known  that  it  was  a  cher- 
ished plan  of  President  Garfield  during  his  term  to  urge 
upon  Congress  the  purchase  of  Cuba,  not  because  the 
United  States  was  too  small,  but  solely  to  secure  the  bless- 
ings of  easy  and  free  exchange  with  that  Queen  of  the 
Antilles,  the  benefits  to  the  entire  people  outweighing  in 
his  consideration  the  interests  of  a  few  cane-mills  in  Louis- 
iana, a  few  orange-groves  in  Florida,  and  a  few  tobacco- 
farms  in  the  Carolinas. 


62  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

The  railroad  has  now  penetrated  Mexico  from  the  United 
States.  Soon  the  question  will  be  pressing  for  answer : 
Shall  thirty-eight  States  have  the  blessings  of  reciprocal 
trade  with  a  semi-tropical  land  just  at  our  doors,  or  shall 
they,  in  order  to  secure  its  products,  pay  tribute  to  a  few 
plantations  on  this  shore  of  the  Gulf  and  on  this  bank  of 
the  Rio  Grande? 

The  Morrill  Tariff,  as  we  have  seen,  was  framed  and 
enacted  as  a  war  measure.  The  country  was  entering  a 
contest  of  such  magnitude  as  to  enlist  its  every  resource, 
and  of  such  importance  that  the  national  existence  itself 
was  the  issue.  Surely  it  needed  its  powers  free.  It  needed 
to  be  at  its  best.  It  was  no  time  for  handicapping  itself 
with  burdens.  The  chief  thing  was  to  obtain  the  maxi- 
mum of  revenue  at  the  least  expense  to  the  people.  It 
was  the  most  unauspicious  time  in  all  our  history  for  load- 
ing down  the  productive  powers  of  nine  tenths  of  our  peo- 
ple with  a  protective  tariff  under  plea  of  encouraging 
domestic  industries.  Something  more  illogical  and  incon- 
sistent may  arise  in  the  future ;  but  certainly  never  in  the 
past  was  the  patriotism  of  the  people  so  cunningly  used 
to  further  the  selfish  ends  of  individuals,  nor  the  real  inter- 
ests of  the  nation  so  sacrificed  by  crude  experiments  in 
legislation.  Thus  the  protected  industries  grew  strong 
under  government  favor,  and  for  years  their  commands 
have  been  obeyed  at  Washington,  while  "  the.  still  small 
voice"  of  public  interest  has  been  too  often  unheard.  As 
the  years  have  passed  away  since  the  close  of  the  war,  the 
people  have  been  left  to  bear  upon  their  shoulders,  like 
Atlas,  the  burden  of  taxation  laid  in  the  interests  of  classes  ; 
and  so. utterly  without  precedent  in  the  world  has  been  the 
productive  energies  of  the  country  that  it  has  not  been 
crushed  under  the  load.  Our  age  does  not  afford  a  parallel 
of  such  patient  submission  of  a  people  under  the  heavy 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  63 

hand  of  taxation.  When  the  patriarch  Jacob  was  blessing 
his  sons  as  he  lay  on  his  death-bed,  his  language  to 
Issachar  is  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  American  people 
to-day  :  "  Issachar  is  a  strong  ass,  couching  down  between 
two  burdens  :  and  he  saw  that  rest  was  good,  and  the  land 
that  it  was  pleasant ;  and  bowed  his  shoulder  to  bear,  and 
became  a  servant  unto  tribute." 


CHAPTER  VI. 


SOME  ECONOMIC   PRINCIPLES  UNDERLYING  THE 

TARIFF  ISSUE. 

* 

NIMALS  below  man  find  and  collect  the  things 
to  satisfy  their  wants,  but  they  never  exchange 
or  produce.  Man  is  the  only  producer  and 
exchanger.  No  Eskimo  is  too  stupid  to  bar- 
ter his  dried  fish  for  seal-skins  and  porpoise-fat.  Even  the 
savage  is  cunning  at  a  bargain,  and  tries  to  get  the  most  for 
his  wares.  Civilization  can  not  exist  without  exchange ;  and 
the  higher  the  civilization,  the  greater  its  volume  and 
variety. 

All  men  are  in  pursuit  of  value,  not  because  money  is 
good  of  itself,  but  because  it  will  enable  them  to  gratify 
their  desires  by  exchange.  First,  there  is  the  production 
of  value,  then  the  distribution,  then  the  exchange,  and  then 
the  consumption.  A  tree  is  planted  in  Florida.  After 
some  years  it  bears  an  orange,  which  is  carried  to  New 
York  and  exchanged  for  a  coin.  The  purchaser  parts  with 
the  reward  of  his  own  labor  in  order  to  gratify  his  desire 
to  eat  a  tropical  fruit  without  the  inconvenience  of  pro- 
ducing it  in  his  colder  latitude.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Florida  orange-grower  chooses  to  purchase  with  his  surplus 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  65 

fruit  a  pair  of  boots  made  at  Lynn,  rather  than  attempt 
their  manufacture  at  home. 

The  buyer  wants  something  else  more  than  the  money 
he  gives  for  it.  The  seller  is  glad  to  part  with  his  goods 
in  order  to  get  the  money  to  buy  the  things  he  needs. 
Both  are  pleased  and  profited.  All  trade,  therefore,  is  really 
the  barter  of  one  product  for  another.  Money  is  only  the 
medium  of  exchange.  It  can  satisfy  no  desire  of  itself. 
Any  man  would  do  as  Robinson  Crusoe  did  on  the  ship- 
wreck, —  neglect  the  chest  of  gold,  and  choose  instead  such 
commonplace  articles  as  an  axe,  a  gun,  a  rope,  and  a  bag 
of  seeds. 

Not  even  in  barbarism,  and  far  less  in  civilization,  does 
any  man  try  to  produce  by  his  own  labor  all  those  things 
necessary  to  satisfy  his  desires.  He  must  produce  a  sur- 
plus, else  he  can  not  command  the  surplus  of  others ;  but 
having  a  surplus,  he  has  an  instinct  to  buy  where  he  can 
buy  the  cheapest,  and  sell  where  he  can  sell  the  dearest. 
Each  producer  must  first  render  some  service  to  others 
before  he  can  receive  one  himself.  Thus  every  man  is  on 
the  alert  to  do  the  most  for  others,  in  order  that  he  may  get 
the  greatest  reward  to  himself.  This  is  the  basis  of  civi- 
lization. But  for  it  we  should  never  have  emerged  from 
barbarism.  Thus  a  man,  a  community,  a  nation,  becomes 
wealthy. 

A  man  gains  by  what  he  sells,  else  he  would  not  sell. 
He  gains  also  by  what  he  buys,  else  he  would  not  buy. 
All  men  abhor  a  bad  bargain.  All  exchange  is  based  upon 
the  idea  of  profit ;  and  if  it  be  wanting,  trade  can  not  exist 
at  all,  or  having  an  existence,  can  not  continue.  The  very 
fact  that  trade  exists  between  men  or  nations  is  itself  a 
proof  that  the  exchange  is  mutually  profitable.  Since  it  is 
advantageous  to  both  parties,  no  law  can  repress  it,  and  it 
is  too  spontaneous  to  need  any  attempt  of  law  to  stimulate 

S 


66  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

it.  True,  there  is  an  antagonism  between  the  seller  and 
the  buyer ;  but  unless  the  exchange  can  be  made  profitable 
to  both,  the  business  does  not  go  forward  to  consummation. 

The  same  thing  is  true  of  nations.  A  nation's  trade  is 
but  the  sum  of  many  individual  exchanges ;  and  hence  the 
aggregate  must  be  as  profitable  as  are  its  parts.  Hence  the 
old  idea  of  the  Mercantile  System,  that  one  nation  gains, 
while  the  other  loses,  by  exchange,  is  a  fallacy.  One  man's 
enrichment  after  honest  trade  implies  another  man's  enrich- 
ment, not,  as  the  common  notion  still  asserts,  another  man's 
impoverishment.  We  buy  our  coffee  in  Brazil  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  we  can  buy  it  more  cheaply  than  we  can 
produce  it.  Men  do  not  trade  for  pleasure,  and  there  is  no 
possible  explanation  of  traffic,  except  the  mutual  profit  which 
results. 

In  Nature  there  is  the  greatest  diversity  of  powers  and 
adaptations.  One  man  can  most  profitably  labor  in  shoeing 
horses ;  another  in  making  clothes ;  another  in  curing  dis- 
ease ;  another  in  pleading  in  courts ;  another  in  preaching 
the  Gospel.  Men  do  not  try  to  pursue  every  vocation,  but 
they  prefer  a  chosen  one,  in  order  that  by  singleness  of 
purpose  they  may  outstrip  others  and  produce  a  greater 
abundance  and  a  better  quality  of  goods  for  the  world's 
markets.  If  this  were  not  a  wise  course,  it  could  not  be 
universally  adopted. 

Let  us  see  how  acquired  skill  operates  as  between  a  car- 
penter and  a  blacksmith.  Every  man  can  drive  a  nail,  and 
every  one  can  hammer  iron.  Even  before  they  learned 
their  trades,  each  could  do  something  in  the  field  of  labor 
chosen  by  the  other.  Let  this  natural  efficiency  of  each  be 
represented  by  i.  But  by  mastery  of  his  trade,  by  prac- 
tice and  diligence,  each  has  become  so  expert  in  his  own 
occupation  that  he  can  despatch  more  work  and  of  a  better 
quality  than  before,  so  that  he  has  raised  his  efficiency  to 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  6/ 

5.  Now,  if  the  carpenter  employs  the  blacksmith  to  shoe 
his  horse,  he  gains  4  more  than  he  would  by  doing  the 
work  himself.  The  blacksmith  will  employ  the  carpenter 
to  build  his  house,  since  he  will  gain  5  by  doing  so,  while 
he  would  gain  but  i  by  doing  it  himself.  Hence  there  is  a 
gain  of  i  o  by  the  exchange  of  labor,  while  there  would  be  a 
gain  of  only  2  without  the  exchange.  The  net  gain  is  8. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  while  yet  an  unskilled  worker, 
each  should  receive  one  dollar  a  day  as  wages.  Reason 
would  say  that  after  becoming  expert  in  their  trades  each 
man  should  receive  five  dollars  a  day.  But  they  do  not 
receive  such  a  sum.  They  think  themselves  fortunate  if 
their  skill  shall  double  their  receipts,  and  give  them  two 
dollars.  Thus  if  the  carpenter  employs  the  blacksmith,  or 
vice  versa,  he  receives  the  worth  of  five  dollars  in  labor 
which  cost  him  but  two  dollars.  When  each  workman  has 
made  his  labor  highly  productive,  he  stands  ready  to  ex- 
change his  skill  for  the  products  of  others  on  terms  even 
more  advantageous  to  them  than  to  himself.  It  is  thus  that 
men  and  nations  are  profited  by  exchange.  The  buyer  is 
profited  by  gratifying  his  desires  at  what  to  him  is  a  di- 
minished cost;  and  the  seller  is  benefited  by  disposing 
of  his  surplus  productions  at  what  to  him  is  an  increased 
compensation. 

The  same  diversity  of  advantage  exists  in  nations.  Brazil 
yields  coffee  ;  Cuba,  sugar ;  Jamaica,  bananas  ;  China,  tea ; 
Africa,  ivory  and  diamonds ;  Alaska,  seals ;  the  United 
States,  grain,  meat,  and  petroleum.  By  special  endowment 
of  nature  almost  every  part  of  the  world  has  some  article 
which  it  can  produce  better  than  other  countries.  The 
very  purpose  of  trade,  and  the  only  purpose,  is  to  take 
advantage  of  this  cheaper  production.  Remove  this  in- 
ducement, and  foreign  trade  would  cease  at  once,  the 
ships  would  rot  at  the  wharves,  and  each  nation  would 


68  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

begin  to  practise,  like  China  and  Japan,  isolation  and  self- 
sufficiency. 

Tea  can  be  grown  in  China  at  twenty  cents  a  pound, 
and  in  Tennessee  at  fifty  dollars  a  pound.  The  difference 
is  the  measure  of  advantage  to  be  secured  by  purchase 
rather  than  by  production.  For  the  same  reason,  Minne- 
sota raises  wheat  instead  of  cotton ;  Manitoba  raises  oats, 
but  lets  Aspinwall  produce  bananas.  Iowa  wisely  raises 
corn,  but  buys  oranges  in  Florida.  So  manifest  are  the 
advantages  of  both  domestic  and  foreign  trade,  based  up- 
on greater  advantage  of  climate,  natural  endowment,  or 
acquired  facility,  that  men  everywhere,  when  left  to  act 
voluntarily,  avail  themselves  of  its  benefits. 

All  countries  are  in  a  condition  of  dependence.  No 
land  can  produce  all  that  its  people  will  require ;  and  the 
farther  men  advance  in  civilized  life,  the  more  varied  and 
extensive  will  be  their  demands  upon  the  special  advantages 
enjoyed  by  other  nations.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that 
all  interference  with  this  trade  by  making  exchanges  fewer 
and  more  difficult,  must  lessen  the  comforts  and  reduce 
the  profits  which  result  from  a  free  intercourse.  Business 
needs  no  stimulus,  but  freedom. 

In  our  country,  Government  is  simply  a  committee  of 
citizens  appointed  to  look  after  certain  important  interests 
for  the  entire  body  of  people.  This  committee  is  seldom 
any  wiser  than  the  average  head,  or  better  than  the  aver- 
age heart.  To  inform  men,  therefore,  with  whom  to  trade, 
and  to  show  them  what  exchanges  are  profitable,  is  a  func- 
tion that  Government  never  has  done,  and  perhaps  never 
can  do,  successfully.  When  Colbert  asked  the  French  mer- 
chant Legendre  what  the  State  could  do  for  the  commer- 
cial part  of  France,  the  latter  made  the  laconic  reply,  "  Let 
us  alone."  When  Alexander  the  Great  visited  Diogenes 
sitting  in  his  tub,  the  conqueror  asked  what  handsome  thing 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  69 

he  could  do  for  a  philosopher.  The  Cynic  answered, 
"  Stand  out  of  my  sunshine." 

Law  never  created  anything.  It  may  acknowledge  a 
right,  and  point  out  justice,  but  it  is  not  the  parent  of 
either.  Taxation  has  but  one  voice.  Its  only  words  are 
those  of  the  highwayman,  "  Stand,  and  deliver  !  "  Unless 
law  can  in  some  way  add  to  the  products  of  the  country, 
it  will  never  increase  its  wealth.  It  can  never  increase  the 
capital,  though  it  may  divert  it  into  new  channels.  It  can 
never  increase  the  products  of  labor,  though  it  may  turn 
labor  from  one  occupation  to  another.  It  can  never  pro- 
mote trade,  since  the  maximum  of  exchange  will  exist  only 
under  freedom.  It  can  not  increase  consumption,  since 
men  will  satisfy  the  greatest  number  of  desires  when  left 
free  to  consult  their  whims. 

Since  law  is  not  a  producer,  it  can  only  operate  to  take 
value  from  one  man  and  pass  it  over  to  another.  When 
that  is  done  by  an  individual,  it  is  called  "  robbery ; "  when 
it  ^is  done  by  Government,  it  is  called  "  protection."  Law 
can  thus  benefit  designated  industries,  but  it  must  always 
be  at  the  expense  of  others.  We  can  no  more  augment 
wealth  by  a  mere  distribution  of  it  by  force  of  law,  than 
a  boy  could  lift  himself  over  the  fence  by  his  boot-straps, 
or  a  man  sail  across  a  lake  by  using  a  bellows  to  make 
his  wind. 

Gravitation  governs  the  material  world  no  more  harmo- 
niously than  the  natural  laws  of  trade  govern  all  exchange. 
Labrador  has  a  barren  soil  and  a  bleak  climate.  It  would 
be  tyranny  to  compel  men  to  live  there,  under  the  plea  that 
it  is  necessary  to  distribute  population.  Is  it  not  equally 
as  unwise  and  almost  as  tyrannous  to  make  laws  to  seduce 
men  from  profitable  occupations  into  unprofitable  ones 
under  the  plea  that  it  is  necessary  to  develop  resources? 
Population  and  industry  will  flow  spontaneously  to  the 


70  /S  PROTECTION-  A    BENEFIT? 

places  where  they  can  most  profitably  employ  themselves. 
Sahara  is  an  ocean  of  dry  and  shifting  sand.  Would  it  be 
good  sense  to  attempt  to  start  there  a  rice-swamp,  under 
the  plea  that  it  is  necessary  to  diversify  industry?  Indus- 
tries will  start  into  being  at  all  those  places  which  are  fitted 
for  them  by  the  endowments  of  Nature.  If  an  industry 
does  not  start  at  any  given  place,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  the 
business  can  not  be  conducted  at  that  time  and  place,  ex- 
cept at  a  loss  as  compared  with  other  places  more  favorably 
situated  and  better  endowed,  and  as  compared  with  other 
industries  then  and  there  in  operation.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  conditions  be  favorable,  it  will  spring  into  activ- 
ity of  itself,  not  only  without  legal  encouragement,  but,  as 
shown  in  our  .colonial  history,  in  spite  of  Government  re- 
pression. It  is  not  a  mere  accident  that  silver-mining 
flourishes  in  Colorado,  iron-making  in  Pennsylvania,  cotton- 
weaving  on  the  Merrimac,  shoe-making  at  Lynn,  corn- 
raising  in  Illinois,  or  wheat-growing  in  Manitoba.  Neither 
are  they  creations  of  human  law.  These  industries  are  the 
creatures  of  natural  law ;  and  the  moment  that  any  human 
device  enters  either  to  repress  or  stimulate  them,  it  works 
mischief,  —  mischief  of  the  same  kind  as  a  boiler-maker  in 
a  jewelry  store,  or  a  bull  in  a  china-shop. 

The  country  having  superior  facilities  sells  its  cheapened 
productions  on  the  basis  of  their  cost  under  favorable  con- 
ditions, and  not  on  that  of  their  cost  in  the  purchasing 
country.  Tea  is  cheap  in  the  United  States  solely  because 
it  is  produced  cheaply  in  China.  If,  therefore,  silk  culture 
can  be  carried  on  in  China  more  profitably  than  in  New  Jer- 
sey ;  if  diamonds  can  be  found  more  cheaply  at  Cape  Town 
than  in  North  Carolina ;  if  sugar  can  be  made  more  cheaply 
in  Cuba  than  in  Maine  ;  if  cottonades  can  be  manufactured 
more  advantageously  at  Manchester  than  at  Lowell,  —  it  can 
not  fail  to  entail  a  loss  upon  the  purchasers  of  these  goods 


7.S-  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT!  Jl 

for  Congress  to  try  to  nullify  by  restrictions  and  taxes  the 
peculiar  advantages  enjoyed  by  these  foreign  countries. 

Yet  this  is  just  what  protection  would  do.  It  proceeds 
upon  this  fundamental  assumption  :  It  is  necessary  to  equal- 
ize the  facilities  of  production.  It  is  necessary  to  nullify 
by  taxation  each  of  the  special  endowments  of  other  coun- 
tries, in  order  to  force  our  people  into  the  production  of 
those  articles  which,  if  left  alone,  they  could  buy  more 
profitably  abroad.  Participation  in  our  markets  on  the 
part  of  a  foreign  nation  having  natural  or  acquired  advan- 
tages is  an  evil  not  only  to  the  American  producer  not 
having  those  advantages,  but  to  the  country  at  large. 

Protection  says  it  is  better  for  us  as  a  nation  to  produce 
the  goods  we  need,  even  though  it  should  be  under  harsh 
conditions,  than  to  purchase  them  from  more  favorably 
endowed  foreigners.  Will  this  statement  stand  a  close  ex- 
amination ?  Here  is  an  illustration  :  An  American  farmer 
has  raised  five  bushels  of  wheat,  and  wishes  to  exchange  a 
part  of  it  for  woollen  cloth.  The  imported  article  can  be 
brought  to  his  town  and  exchanged  for  the  same  price  per 
yard  as  a  bushel  of  wheat.  He  makes  the  exchange,  and 
now  owns  four  bushels  of  wheat  and  one  yard  of  cloth.  If 
any  one  in  the  country  could  make  a  yard  of  cloth  more 
cheaply  than  that,  it  would  have  been  done.  The  farmer 
buys  in  the  cheapest  market.  Since  no  one  has  begun  to 
make  cloth,  it  shows  that  wheat-raising  is  more  profitable 
than  cloth-weaving.  But  the  Government  considers  it 
highly  desirable  to  stimulate  the  production  of  cloth.  To 
encourage  the  new  enterprise,  it  restricts  the  importation  of 
the  foreign  article  by  taxing  it  to  the  value  of  half  a  bushel 
of  wheat  on  each  yard.  Not  a  yard  of  imported  cloth  can 
now  be  offered  for  less  than  a  bushel  and  a  half  of  wheat. 
The  farmer  buys  a  yard  as  before.  But  what  has  become 
of  the  half-bushel  of  wheat  ?  It  was  first  paid  by  the  im- 


?2  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

porter  into  the  treasury  of  the  nation,  and  he  was  reim- 
bursed by  the  farmer.  The  importer  is  not  affected,  the 
treasury  is  gainer,  and  the  farmer  is  loser. 

But  since  the  price  of  cloth  has  been  raised  fifty  per  cent 
by  the  tax,  it  is  perceived  that  cloth  can  now  be  produced 
in  America  at  the  increased  price.  Capitalists  therefore 
erect  mills,  and  sell  their  cloth  at  the  price  of  one  and  a 
half  bushels  of  wheat  for  each  yard.  The  farmer  again  buys 
a  yard.  Whither  does  the  half-bushel  of  wheat  go  now  ? 
Not  to  the  treasury,  not  to  the  importer,  though  it  has  gone 
from  the  farmer.  It  has  gone  to  the  home  manufacturer 
either  as  a  bonus,  a  subsidy  forced  by  law  from  the  pocket 
of  the  purchaser,  or  else  it  has  been  absorbed  to  make  up 
to  the  manufacturer  the  natural  losses  in  his  business.  If 
it  was  not  a  pure  gratuity,  it  must  go  to  set  him  square  in 
an  otherwise  losing  industry.  It  was,  then,  a  loss  to  the 
purchaser  of  the  cloth,  but  a  gain  to  no  one.  It  was  a  tax 
with  which  Governments  hire  men  to  fight  against  Nature. 
It  is  what  consumers  pay  for  the  privilege  of  forcing  an  in- 
dustry into  existence  when  the  laws  of  Nature  and  of  trade 
forbid. 

In  such  a  case,  it  is  true  that  labor  has  been  diversified 
by  law.  Under  the  operation  of  protection  our  attention 
is  frequently  called  to  the  fact  that  "  our  industries  have 
been  diversified  and  enlarged."  But  often  the  parallel  fact 
is  lost  sight  of,  that  the  "  diversity  "  was  solely  produced 
by  calling  men  from  a  business  that  was  profitable,  into  one 
which  at  that  time  and  place  was  unprofitable.  It  may  not 
be  so  easy  in  all  cases  to  see  the  second  half  of  the  truth, 
that  the  "  enlargement "  was  at  the  expense  of  all  purchas- 
ers, and  to  the  profit  of  no  one.  Protection  is  bold  enough 
and  honest  enough  to  avow  that  if  we  can  not  compete 
with  foreigners  in  lines  of  production  in  which  they  excel, 
it  is  a  mark  of  wisdom  to  stimulate  domestic  production  by 


JS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  73 

raising  the  price  to  all  our  people,  and  by  flinging  away  all 
the  advantages  which  the  foreign  facility  and  cheapness 
would  bring  us. 

It  is  not  strange  that  an  occupation  which  is  unprofit- 
able may  be  galvanized  into  activity  when  all  other  indus- 
tries are  levied  upon  to  support  it.  But  it  is  a  wide 
hiatus  in  logic  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  diversity  thus 
caused  is  a  proof  of  prosperity.  When  each  person  sup- 
ports himself,  the  gain  is  greater  than  when  the  industrious 
and  the  thrifty  are  saddled  with  a  tax  for  pauperism  and 
indolence.  If  one  industry  is  taxed  to  support  another, 
the  money  taken  is  so  much  loss  entailed,  so  much  capital 
sunk,  and  so  much  drawn  from  the  aggregate  national 
gain. 

Again,  protection  assumes  that  while  it  is  natural  that 
men  will  seek  the  occupation  which  is  most  profitable  to 
themselves,  it  is  not  best  for  the  whole  country  that  they 
should  do  so.  In  the  First  Congress,  Fisher  Ames,  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, made  this  transparent  admission  :  "  In  America 
invitation  and  encouragement  are  necessary.  Without 
them  infant  manufactures  droop,  and  those  who  might  be 
employed  in  them,  seek  with  success  a  competence  from 
our  cheap  and  fertile  soil."  This  means  that  agriculture 
was  so  profitable  in  1 789  that  it  was  necessary  so  to  reduce 
the  profits  of  farming,  and  so  to  increase  the  profits  of  man- 
ufacture, by  protective  taxes  that  men  would  no  longer  seek 
a  livelihood  from  the  soil. 

Nature  made  the  surface  of  the  earth  diversified  by  hills 
and  valleys.  But  when  a  railroad  is  to  be  constructed,  the 
engineers  cut  down  the  elevations  and  put  them  into  the 
depressions,  to  make  a  uniform  level.  So  protection  would 
reduce  the  profit  of  a  business  specially  blessed  by  Na- 
ture, and  hand  it  over  to  those  less  favored  by  climate  or 
situation,  to  make  an  even  plane  of  advantage. 


74  f-S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

Protection  asserts  that  while  some  industries  may  be 
unprofitable,  it  is  better  that  they  should  be  carried  along 
by  the  productive  energies  of  the  country,  than  that  they 
should  go  out  of  existence.  It  further  asserts,  and  proceeds 
upon  the  assumption,  that  a  country  should  produce  within 
itself  all  that  it  consumes  ;  or,  to  speak  with  more  precision, 
that  it  should  produce  everything  that  can  be  produced, 
even  at  a  great  disadvantage ;  and  that  if  we  should  not 
promote  by  law  the  cultivation  of  such  articles  as  tea  and 
coffee,  it  is  only  because  Nature  has  made  it  not  only 
difficult,  but  impossible. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  of  free  trade  assumes 
that  each  nation  has  its  natural  advantages,  and  that  profit- 
able commerce  consists  in  buying  in  the  cheapest  and  sell- 
ing in  the  dearest  market  to  be  found  in  any  part  of  the 
world.  It  asserts  that  true  wealth  consists  in  an  abundance 
of  good  things,  not  in  high  prices  or  in  gold ;  that  taxa- 
tion is  an  evil  which  must  be  borne  by  consumers,  and  that 
it  is  paid  out  of  the  savings  of  labor ;  that  manufactures 
will  spring  up  spontaneously  whenever  and  wherever  a  rea- 
sonable profit  can  be  expected ;  that  true  economy  would 
lead  the  nation  to  satisfy  its  wants  by  purchase  if  it  can  be 
done  by  a  less  outlay  than  by  production ;  that  neither 
men  nor  nations  are  at  the  height  of  their  wealth-producing 
capacity  until  they  are  free  from  all  dictation  of  Govern- 
ment. Free  trade  confesses  to  a  love  for  an  open  field 
and  for  fair  play.  It  sees  a  surpassing  beauty  in  an  unhan- 
dicapped,  free-for-all  race  in  business. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

IS  SCARCITY  BETTER  THAN  ABUNDANCE  ;  DEAR- 
NESS  THAN  CHEAPNESS;  OBSTACLES  THAN  FA- 
CILITIES ;  LABOR  THAN  LEISURE  ? 

LL  buyers  desire  to  find  cheapness  in  the  mar- 
ket. They  hope  also  to  find  abundance ; 
knowing  that  it  is  one  of  the  conditions  of 
cheapness.  On  the  other  hand,  the  seller 
desires  that  there  may  be  a  scarcity,  knowing  that  he  may 
then  expect  a  greater  profit ;  hence  scarcity  is  desirable. 
An  Iowa  farmer  declared  that  half  a  crop  of  corn  is  better 
for  the  country  than  a  full  crop,  since  it  might  double  the 
price,  making  the  cash  yield  the  same,  while  the  farmers 
would  not  have  the  labor  of  harvesting  such  a  bulk  of  cheap 
grain.  All  other  producers  might  desire  scarcity  of  their 
products  in  the  hands  of  other  people,  but  they  must  want 
abundance  in  their  own.  Since  sellers  desire  a  dear  mar- 
ket, there  has  grown  up  a  widespread  belief  that  scarcity  is 
better  than  abundance,  and  dearness  than  cheapness.  The 
American  farmer  who  secretly  rejoices  when  he  hears  that 
the  wheat-crop  in  Europe  is  a  failure,  since  it  may  have 
the  effect  to  raise  the  value  of  his  own  grain,  is  a  believer 
in  scarcity.  Manufacturers  who  combine  and  form  "trusts " 


?6  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

in  order  to  reduce  the  output  in  their  line  of  production, 
must  believe  that  abundance  is  an  evil.  In  this  way  all 
branches  of  business  abhor  abundance,  and  if  they  should 
have  legislation  at  their  command,  they  would  find  it  to 
their  interest  to  enact  laws  forbidding  competition.  This 
has  been  often  done.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  exclusive 
companies  and  close  monopolies  which  in  past  ages  proved 
such  a  commercial  blight  in  Europe.  But  since  in  Amer- 
ica competition  can  not  be  avoided  with  any  show  of  reason 
by  prohibiting  home  production,  it  takes  the  form  of  re- 
stricting foreign  importation.  This  is  the  real  significance 
of  all  our  protective  tariffs.  They  have  been  adopted  at 
the  demands  of  those  able  to  influence  legislation,  with  the 
fundamental  object  of  creating  an  artificial  scarcity  as  a 
means  of  causing  an  artificial  increase  in  price.  If  an  indi- 
vidual producer  through  legislation  should  obtain  power  to 
cut  off  competition  with  his  products,  he  would  secure  a 
monopoly ;  he  would  prosper  at  the  expense  of  all  his  fel- 
lows ;  and  public  indignation  would  be  quick  to  condemn 
both  him  and  the  law,  —  the  country  would  be  on  the 
retreat  to  barbarism.  But  when  this  evil  is  made  as  exten- 
sive as  possible ;  when  it  is  applied  to  a  hundred  industries 
instead  of  one  ;  when  competition  is  cut  off  from  a  million 
persons ;  when  it  is  applied,  not  to  one  article,  but  to  a 
thousand  articles  entering  daily  consumption,  and  used 
by  the  poor  as  well  as  the  rich,  —  then  it  is  seriously 
proposed  to  call  it  a  benefit.  Individual  scarcity  is  a  con- 
fessed evil ;  but  universal  scarcity  is  proclaimed  as  an 
unmixed  blessing. 

The  individual  producer  is  logical  and  correct  from  his 
selfish  point  of  view.  The  Iowa  farmer,  in  regretting  the 
large  corn  crop,  could  see  no  farther  than  his  own  interest, 
and  he  reasoned  well  for  such  a  small  horizon.  His  mis- 
take was  in  not  seeing  the  great  outlying  world,  and  that 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  77 

whether  prices  of  grain  were  high  or  low,  a  full  crop  was 
just  twice  as  beneficial  as  a  half,  since  it  would  satisfy  twice 
as  many  wants.  Protection  is  based  upon  the  same  funda- 
mental mistake.  The  fact  is  overlooked  that  products,  and 
not  money,  constitute  wealth,  and  that  the  latter  is  desirable 
only  because  it  will  command  the  former. 

Plenty  is  so  desirable  that  all  business  life  is  planned  to 
secure  it.  This  in  its  turn  brings  such  a  degree  of  cheap- 
ness that  more  desires  can  be  gratified,  the  number  of  pur- 
chasers increasing  in  a  greater  ratio  than  the  decrease  in 
price.  Because  Brazil  produces  coffee  in  abundance  and 
with  ease,  Rio  Janeiro  sends  us  the  berry,  not  at  one  tenth 
of  what  it  would  cost  us  to  produce  it,  but  only  at  the  cost 
of  tropical  production  plus  transportation.  Thus  we  could 
run  the  pencil  down  the  entire  list  of  foreign  commodities. 
The  whole  earth  is  ready  to  pour  its  wealth  of  cheap  pro- 
duction into  our  laps  at  a  cost  more  advantageous  to  us 
than  to  itself.  How  short-sighted  and  mistaken  is  the 
policy  of  cutting  ourselves  off  from  the  enjoyment  of  all 
this  foreign  plenty  and  cheapness,  in  order  that  we  may 
laboriously  and  expensively  produce  the  goods  ourselves  ! 
To  call  such  a  thing  a  public  advantage,  sounds  like  one  of 
Dean  Swift's  satires. 

When  Ohio  entered  the  Union,  the  United  States  con- 
tracted to  build  a  road  across  the  mountains  to  connect  the 
new  State  with  the  seaboard.  This  National  Road  was 
thought  to  be  a  benefit.  Were  the  men  of  that  time  under 
a  delusion  ?  All  persons  instinctively  rejoice  at  a  new  dis- 
covery or  invention  which  lessens  labor  or  facilitates  in- 
tercourse and  transportation.  Private  capital  has  built 
railroads,  constructed  ships,  opened  harbors,  and  dredged 
rivers  to  facilitate  communication,  with  the  idea  that  this 
would  be  an  advantage.  Is  this  a  mistake?  Congress 
appropriates  millions  for  river  and  harbor  improvements. 


78  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

We  do  all  we  can  to  make  exchange  easy ;  but  as  soon  as 
we  begin  to  succeed,  and  the  goods  begin  to  flow  in  at 
reduced  cost,  we  lay  a  tax  to  keep  them  out.  We  dredge 
out  a  sand-bar  or  blow  up  Hell-gate  from  the  bottom  of  a 
river  to  render  commerce  easy,  and  we  then  set  up  a  cus- 
tom-house on  its  banks  to  render  it  difficult.  We  rejoice 
when  ships  are  built  to  enter  upon  foreign  commerce,  and 
then  we  pass  laws  which  forbid  them  to  bring  foreign  goods 
to  our  shores.  We  throw  bridges  across  the  St.  Lawrence 
and  the  Niagara  to  facilitate  intercourse  with  Canada ;  but  as 
soon  as  they  are  completed,  we  station  a  custom  policeman 
on  our  end  of  the  bridge  to  render  communication  difficult 
and  expensive.  During  the  Rebellion  we  put  a  blockade 
along  the  coast  of  the  Southern  States  to  cut  off  their  for- 
eign trade,  and  thus  injure  them  ;  we  now  put  a  line  of  cus- 
tom-houses along  the  same  coast  to  cut  off  the  same  trade, 
and  thus  benefit  them.  Every  month  the  Government  pub- 
lishes a  volume  of  "  Consular  Reports  "  to  facilitate  trade 
with  other  countries,  and  at  the  same  time  continues  in 
existence  a  protective  tariff  whose  object  is  to  prevent  this 
trade.  We  enact  navigation  laws  to  force  our  people  to 
build  ocean-going  ships,  and  we  then  declare  by  the  pen  of 
one  protectionist  writer,  "  It  would  be  a  benefit  to  America 
if  the  Atlantic  were  a  sea  of  fire."  We  have  ships  to  pro- 
mote, and  tariffs  to  prevent,  importations ;  machinery  to 
cheapen,  and  tariffs  to  make  dear.  In  a  word,  we  do  all 
that  we  can  by  mechanical  appliances  and  by  our  inventive 
talents,  to  annihilate  time,  distance,  and  all  other  natural 
obstacles  to  foreign  trade  ;  and  forthwith  we  set  up  all  the 
legal  obstacles  to  prevent  it  that  the  ingenuity  of  man  can 
invent,  and  the  patience  of  the  people  will  permit.  This  is 
one  of  our  economic  paradoxes.  Thus  does  statesman- 
ship become  inscrutable. 
The  essence  of  protection  is  the  placing  of  obstacles  in  the 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  79 

course  of  foreign  trade.  It  thereby  promotes  scarcity,  and 
is  an  obstacle  to  exchange,  in  the  same  way  that  a  bad 
road,  a  steep  range  of  mountains,  a  deep  river,  or  a  wide 
ocean  is  an  obstacle.  We  try  to  overcome  the  one,  but 
deliberately  perpetuate  the  other,  —  and  that  too  when  the 
removal  of  the  natural  barriers  is  difficult  and  expensive, 
but  the  removal  of  the  legal  ones  can  be  accomplished 
by  as  easy  a  thing  as  the  casting  of  ballots  or  the  call  of 
a  roll. 

On  the  very  coast  of  Nova  Scotia,  near  the  United  States, 
are  valuable  coal  mines,  from  which  fuel  might  be  cheaply 
and  advantageously  bought  by  all  New  England  and  the 
cities  and  States  of  the  coast  as  far  south  as  Florida.  But 
some  coal  mine  owners  of  Pennsylvania  object  to  this  ;  and 
hence  a  protective  tax  is  placed  on  coal,  which  has  the 
effect  of  making  it  as  difficult  and  as  expensive  for  our 
coast  States  to  supply  themselves  with  fuel  as  though  the 
mines  of  Nova  Scotia  were  situated  two  hundred  miles  in 
the  interior,  beyond  hills  and  rivers.  Protection  does  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  this  increase  of  difficulty  in  obtaining 
coal  is  an  advantage,  since  it  develops  the  coal  interests  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  compels  people  to  buy  in  the  more 
expensive  market.  If  this  be  a  benefit,  the  removal  of  the 
Nova  Scotia  mines  a  thousand  miles  from  our  seaboard 
would  be  a  still  greater  advantage  ;  and  to  sink  them  in  the 
midst  of  the  Atlantic  would  be  the  maximum  of  benefit. 

It  has  always  been  supposed  that  it  is  very  desirable  to 
secure  the  maximum  of  products  with  the  minimum  of 
labor.  Perhaps  the  man  will  never  be  found  who  would 
voluntarily  undergo  the  greater  labor  instead  of  the  lesser 
in  producing  a  given  result.  But  protection  denies  this ; 
and  by  throwing  obstacles  in  the  way  of  exchange,  asserts 
that  effort  is  better  than  ease,  that  labor  is  better  than  lei- 
sure. Protection  is  sought  for  chiefly  because  it  causes  a 


80  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

rise  in  prices ;  and  hence  it  means  greater  labor  to  earn 
the  things  to  satisfy  our  desires.  It  was  said  by  an  Ameri- 
can statesman,  speaking  deliberately  on  paper,  that  "  Labor 
is  the  wealth  of  the  country."  It  might  be  supposed  that 
he  meant  the  products  of  labor ;  but  it  is  a  favorite  axiom 
of  protectionists  that  labor  itself  should  be  abundant,  that 
the  country  may  be  prosperous.  When  protection  has 
caused  a  general  rise  in  prices,  and  has  thereby  increased 
the  labor  necessary  to  secure  a  given  commodity,  we  are 
immediately  called  upon  to  witness  the  evidences  of  pros- 
perity. The  laborer  with  a  wife  and  six  children  to  sup- 
port, is  pressed  down  by  the  abundance  of  labor  and  the 
scarcity  of  products,  and  he  finds  the  conditions  of  exist- 
ence harsher  than  before.  No  share  of  the  prosperity 
comes  to  him.  He  would  prefer,  and  so  would  every  one 
else,  a  system  of  greater  cheapness  and  less  effort. 

Suppose  a  woollen  blanket  from  England  can  be  sold  in 
the  United  States  for  $3.00,  and  that  labor  is  worth  $1.50 
per  day  :  the  labor  of  two  days  will  buy  the  blanket.  But 
Congress,  in  order  to  "  protect  labor,"  places  on  blankets  an 
import  tax  of  a  hundred  per  cent.  The  foreign  article  can 
not  now  be  sold  for  less  than  $6.00,  and  the  workman  will 
toil  four  days  to  get  it.  Thus  Congress  has  at  one  stroke 
of  policy  subsidized  the  American  manufacturer,  increasing 
his  profits  at  least  fourfold,  and  stimulated  labor  so  far  as 
to  double  it.  The  country  has  advanced  from  one  price 
to  two  prices,  from  one  measure  of  labor  to  two  measures, 
and  we  are  called  upon  to  felicitate  ourselves  over  the 
advances  in  wealth.  Truly,  if  labor  be  riches,  the  country 
is  twice  as  wealthy  as  before ;  but  if  products  be  riches,  it 
has  become  poorer.  Thus  law  "  makes  labor  abundant " 
in  the  same  way  that  a  dull  axe  makes  the  labor  of  a  wood- 
cutter abundant,  or  a  rain  on  the  hay-field  makes  the  labor 
of  the  farmer  abundant.  All  men  in  their  own  private 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  8 1 

business  assume  that  the  gain  is  the  greatest  when  the  ratio 
of  labor  to  product  is  the  least.  But  protection  assumes 
that  the  gain  is  greatest  when  the  ratio  of  labor  to  product 
is  as  great  as  possible.  When  "put  to  its  logical  limit," 
as  a  mathematician  would  say,  its  teachings  may  be  stated 
in  epigram  as  follows  :  "  Labor,  infinitely  great ;  product, 
infinitely  small." 

The  opinion  was  once  very  current  that  labor-saving  ma- 
chinery would  injure  working-men  by  taking  labor  from 
them.  Both  in  Europe  and  America  riots  have  often  arisen 
to  resist  the  introduction  of  machinery.  In  America  it  was 
seriously  and  widely  believed  that  steamboats  would  ruin 
the  business  of  sloops,  that  railroads  would  bring  disaster  to 
stage-drivers  and  teamsters,  and  that  the  sewing-machine 
would  reduce  the  sewing-women  to  starvation.  We  now 
see  that  the  real  thing  desired  was  not  labor,  but  the  pro- 
ducts of  labor ;  and  since  these  have  been  vastly  increased 
and  thereby  cheapened  by  machinery,  the  old  fallacy  is 
apparent  enough. 

The  breaking  of  improved  machinery  by  a  mob  is  in 
effect  the  same  thing  as  the  rejection  of  foreign  commerce 
by  law,  since  both  are  a  refusal  of  the  advantages  which 
cheapness  and  plenty  bring.  If  effort,  and  not  product,  if 
dearness,  and  not  cheapness,  if  scarcity,  and  not  plenty,  if 
labor,  and  not  leisure,  are  the  objects  to  be  attained, — as 
protective  duties  would  lead  us  to  believe,  —  the  farmer  at 
harvest-time  should  discard  his  self-binder  for  the  original 
McCormick,  then  reject  it  for  the  cradle,  and  then  it  for 
the  sickle.  Logically,  he  should  throw  aside  his  chilled 
plough  for  the  cast-iron  share,  it  for  the  wooden  mould-board, 
it  for  the  hoe,  it  for  a  squaw's  clam-shell,  and  it  for  the 
finger-nails  of  a  Digger  Indian.  Thus  he  would  realize  the 
ideal  dream  of  protection,  —  labor  rising  into  infinity,  and 
product  sinking  into  zero. 

6 


82  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

For  centuries  steel  has  been  an  article  of  the  first  neces- 
sity among  civilized  nations,  but  its  production  has  always 
been  expensive.  Some  years  ago  Henry  Bessemer,  of 
England,  discovered  a  process  of  making  steel  cheaply. 
All  the  world  rejoiced  at  the  great  invention.  We  were  not 
only  to  have  cheap  cutlery,  but  we  were  even  to  have  steel 
rails  for  our  railroads.  In  all  steel  articles  the  era  of  cheap- 
ness had  come.  But  no  sooner  had  the  invention  shown 
itself  to  be  a  success  than  Congress  was  button-holed  and 
log-rolled  till  it  placed  a  tax  for  protective  purposes  upon 
English  steel.  From  that  day  to  this  we  have  voluntarily 
surrendered  in  the  interests  of  a  few  owners  of  iron  and 
steel  mills  a  large  share  of  the  benefits  which  the  discovery 
and  the  consequent  cheapness  would  have  brought  us. 
We  thought  ourselves  fortunate  at  the  announcement  of  the 
discovery ;  we  now  think  ourselves  fortunate  in  rejecting  its 
benefits.  Our  first  impulse  was  that  when  the  process  of 
manufacture  was  cheapened  more  than  a  thousand  per  cent, 
it  would  be  an  advantage  to  all  the  world ;  but  it  is  now 
our  deliberate  second  thought  that  the  best  way  to  increase 
our  riches  is  to  resort  to  more  expensive  modes  of  man- 
ufacture, to  bar  our  doors  against  foreign  steel  seeking 
entrance,  and  to  turn  coldly  away  when  the  world  offers 
the  results  of  a  cheapened  production.  This  is  exactly  the 
old  fallacy  of  rejecting  improved  machinery,  which,  had  it 
been  successful,  would  have  carried  the  world  back  toward 
barbarism. 

But  the  doctrine  of  abundance  and  cheapness  is  con- 
fronted with  the  plea  that  without  duties  which  either 
restrict  or  prohibit  importations  we  should  have  an  "  in- 
undation of  foreign  goods."  Our  markets  would  be 
"  flooded."  We  should  have  a  "  deluge  of  the  pauper- 
made  goods  of  Europe."  There  would  be  an  "  invasion  " 
of  English  products.  These  metaphors  are  startling.  They 


fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  83 

suggest  a  Noachian  flood,  or  the  march  of  an  invading 
army.  They  strike  terror  into  the  superficial,  and  leave 
the  rather  hazy  impression  that  in  some  way  not  clearly 
understood,  protection  has  saved  the  country  from  a  great 
calamity.  Like  the  outstretched  hands  of  Moses  at  the 
Red  Sea,  it  holds  back  the  threatening  floods.  Can  this 
couching  of  arguments  in  metaphors  really  mean  that  pro- 
tectionists fear  the  "  floods  "  because  they  are  aware  that 
their  "  house  is  built  upon  the  sand "  ?  It  is  at  least  a 
confession  that  protection  is  an  obstacle  to  exchange,  that 
it  creates  dearness,  promotes  scarcity,  and  that  free  trade 
would  bring  in  cheapness.  Such  acknowledgments  are 
not  to  be  overlooked. 

On  what  terms  is  this  flood  of  good  things  offered  to  us? 
If  it  comes  as  a  gratuity,  can  we  do  better  than  accept  the 
gift?  Shall  we  be  ruined  by  enjoying  the  free  bounty  of 
the  world,  any  more  than  we  are  by  enjoying  the  free  air 
and  sunlight  ?  But  if  not  a  gift,  should  it  not  be  only  a 
little  less  acceptable  because  it  is  offered  to  us  at  prices 
greatly  less  than  our  own  producers  are  able  to  name? 
If  a  flood  of  cheap  goods  comes,  shall  we  not  still  "  stem 
the  tide  with  joy  "  ?  By  what  trick  of  logic  do  protectionists 
agree  that  a  gift  is  an  advantage,  and  assert  that  high  prices 
are  an  advantage  also,  but  that  the  intermediate  low  prices 
are  a  positive  detriment  to  the  country?  If  foreigners  are 
able  to  bring  their  goods  to  our  shores  and  to  offer  them 
"  at  prices  ruinously  low,"  is  there  any  good  reason  why  we 
should  restrain  them? 

The  foreign  goods  seek  admission  to  our  markets  because 
we  are  able  to  pay  for  them,  and  because,  like  men  every- 
where, we  prefer  cheapness  to  dearness.  The  greater  the 
wealth  of  a  country,  and  the  greater  the  riches  of  its  pro- 
ducts, the  more  it  will  be  "flooded."  Patagonia  and 
Greenland  are  never  "  inundated."  The  flood  of  European 


84  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

products  does  not  submerge  those  poverty-stricken  lands. 
It  would  be  so  easy  for  European  products  to  sail  across 
the  Mediterranean  and  "  invade  "  the  Sahara  Desert ;  but 
they  never  do.  Why  should  they  rather  cross  the  great 
Atlantic  and  enter  our  ports  while  "advanced  statesman- 
ship "  is  doing  its  best  to  keep  them  out?  Nothing  except 
our  wealth  and  the  good  things  which  we  can  offer  in  ex- 
change, leads  Europe  to  empty  her  horn-of-plenty  in  our 
laps.  But  we,  under  the  forms  of  law,  deny  ourselves  the 
blessings  of  her  abundance  and  cheapness,  and  choose  to 
place  sixty  millions  of  consumers  under  tribute  in  order 
that  we  may  pass  over  the  levy  to  a  few  favored  interests, 
which  in  the  midst  of  a  general  prosperity  are  still  in  such 
a  condition  of  dependence  that  they  clamor  for  government 
succor.  Surely  no  people  were  ever  before  so  indulgent  of 
mendicant  industries. 

But  it  is  argued  that  a  deluge  of  foreign  goods  will  draw 
away  our  gold  and  silver.  Even  if  this  should  occur,  it 
would  work  no  great  harm,  since  we  can  not  use  the  bulk 
of  our  precious  metals  for  any  useful  purpose,  except  to 
exchange  it  for  articles  of  value.  Besides  this,  our  mines 
are  making  silver  one  of  the  most  abundant  products  of  our 
country,  and  our  mints  are  stamping  silver  dollars  at  such  a 
rate  that  the  treasury  vaults  are  filled  from  floor  to  ceiling. 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact  this  drain  of  specie,  which  is  so  much 
feared,  has  never  occurred  to  any  great  extent,  and  it  never 
can.  We  do  not  have,  and  we  never  have  had,  enough 
gold  in  the  country  at  any  one  time  to  pay  even  for  three 
months'  importation.  The  fact  stands  that  we  pay  for  our 
imports  by  our  exports.  If  we  shall  ever  have  "  an  inun- 
dating flood  "  of  European  goods  to  our  shores,  we  shall 
have  a  returning  tidal  wave  of  our  products  to  pay  for  them. 
If  our  protected  industries  shall  ever  be  able  to  join  the 
farmers  and  others  in  thus  supplying  the  world's  market  to 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  85 

pay  for  what  we  buy,  our  manufacturers  will  have  constant 
and  profitable  employment,  —  a  far  better  way  of  stimulat- 
ing labor  than  by  restricting  importation,  raising  prices,  and 
building  up  impediments. 

But  we  are  reminded  by  the  advocates  of  protection  that 
it  is  desirable  to  make  foreign  goods  scarce  in  order  that 
there  may  be  a  greater  demand  for  domestic  products; 
that  it  is  necessary  to  raise  prices  in  order  to  stimulate 
manufactures,  and  hence  give  employment  to  our  working- 
men  ;  and  that  since  the  wages  thus  earned  and  the  goods 
thus  made  will  remain  in  the  country,  the  wealth  of  the 
people  will  be  enlarged.     But  it  may  be  replied  that  the 
raising  of  the  price  will  reduce  instead  of  increase  the  home 
demand  for  our  goods ;  and  though  some  purchasers  would 
be  compelled  to  buy  the  American  goods  who  would  have 
bought  the  foreign,  yet  the  aggregate  number  of  purchasers 
would  be  so  far  reduced  as  largely  to  neutralize  the  benefits 
of  the  higher  price  even  to  manufacturers  themselves.     It 
is  undoubtedly  true  that  high  prices  will  stimulate  domestic 
manufacture,  and  will  to  that  extent  give  employment  to 
laborers.     But  this  does  not  imply  any  benefit  to  them, 
since  it  is  fair  to  suppose  they  were  profitably  employed 
before.     Besides,  it  is  a  pure  assumption,  not  borne  out 
by  the  facts,  that  the  wages  of  laborers  are  thereby  in- 
creased, while  it  is  evidently  an  injury  to  receive  fewer  goods 
in  return  for  labor,  as  would  be  the  case  under  the  rise  in 
prices.     More  labor  and  dearer  goods  are  surely  not  to  be 
preferred  to  comparative  leisure  and  cheapened  products. 
It  is  a  mistake  to  say  that  because  we  have  made  a  certain 
article  in  the  United  States,  we  are  richer  than  we  would  be 
if  we  had  bought  it  elsewhere,  because  if  we  could  have 
made  it  more  economically  than  to  buy  it,  we  would  have 
done  so  without  any  interference  of  Government.   The  very 
fact  that  it  was  not  produced  without  legal  compulsion, 


86  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

shows  that  its  manufacture  was  not  as  profitable  as  other 
branches  of  business,  and  hence  it  was  at  a  loss  to  the  ag- 
gregate wealth  of  the  country.  At  one  time  Denmark  re- 
fused to  buy  the  cheap  machine-made  cloths  of  England, 
in  order  to  give  the  peasantry  employment  on  hand-looms. 
A  protectionist  would  say  that  this  was  a  wise  course.  A  free- 
trader would  declare  that  it  was  wasteful,  unless  Nature  had 
so  blasted  Denmark  that  the  people  could  not  advanta- 
geously produce  anything  which  the  world  would  take  in 
exchange. 

In  fact,  protection  may  be  viewed  from  every  stand- 
point, and  yet  it  rests  upon  the  admission  that  certain  com- 
modities can  not  be  made  in  this  country  except  at  a  loss. 
Under  the  Morrill  Tariff  this  list  includes  over  a  thousand 
articles,  most  of  them  necessary  to  civilization  itself.  This  is 
equivalent  to  saying,  either  that  Nature  has  been  unkind  to 
the  United  States,  as  to  Greenland,  Labrador,  Sahara,  and 
Patagonia,  or  else  that  our  natural  resources  are  already  so 
far  exhausted  that  we  can  no  longer  employ  labor  ad- 
vantageously as  compared  with  European  peoples.  The 
truth  is  known  to  all  men,  that  no  land  under  the  sun  has 
been  more  signally  blessed  with  natural  endowments  than 
ours,  and  that  while  no  part  of  it  has  been  pushed  to  its 
utmost  productiveness,  half  of  it  is  yet  unappropriated,  and 
parts  of  it  as  yet  have  not  even  been  explored.  The  exact 
opposite  of  this  assumption  is  true,  —  that  so  bountiful  are 
the  returns  of  labor  here,  and  so  abundant  and  varied  are 
the  resources  of  our  people,  that  for  over  twenty-five  years 
we  have  been  supporting  a  class  of  producers  who  have 
appealed  to  Congress  as  pauper  manufacturers,  confessing 
their  inability  to  earn  a  living,  and  asking  the  country  to 
tax  itself  for  their  support.  So  vast  are  our  productive 
energies  that  we  are  able  to  carry  the  enormous  burden 
which  protection  imposes,  while  a  majority  of  our  peo- 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  87 

pie,  absorbed  in  their  own  affairs,  appear  unaware  of  its 
existence,  and  a  minority  only  are  actively  engaged,  like 
Christian  in  the  Pilgrim's  Progress,  in  trying  to  throw  it  off. 
When  shall  we  reach  the  "  wicket  gate  "  of  unembarrassed 
trade? 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  INTERESTS   OF  PRODUCERS  VERSUS  THE 
RIGHTS   OF   CONSUMERS. 

jO  say  that  our  sixty  million  people  are  divided 
into  two  classes,  producers  and  consumers,  as 
though  some  produced  only,  and  others  con- 
sumed only,  would  not  be  to  speak  with  accu- 
racy. It  is  more  correct  to  say  that  every  man,  woman, 
and  child  is  a  consumer,  while  a  part  of  them  are  pro- 
ducers also,  and  a  part  are  consumers  only.  The  in- 
terests of  our  people  as  producers  and  consumers  are 
naturally  antagonistic,  since  in  the  latter  relation  we  wish 
low  prices  as  buyers,  while  in  the  former,  as  sellers,  we  wish 
high  prices.  When  men  stand,  as  most  do,  in  the  double 
relation,  they  have  a  divided  interest.  To  illustrate  :  The 
man  who  produces  wheat  only,  and  has,  therefore,  nothing 
else  to  offer  in  the  market,  wishes  dearness  in  that  one 
article ;  but  he  wants  cheapness  in  everything  else.  He 
is  thereby  a  gainer,  though  it  is  at  the  expense  and  to 
the  injury  of  all  who  eat  bread.  If  his  wheat  be  low,  and 
other  articles  high,  he  is  a  loser,  though  the  rest  of  the 
world  is  benefited  by  the  exact  amount  of  his  loss,  since 
bread  is  cheap.  If  both  wheat  and  all  articles  which  he 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  89 

buys  be  high,  his  advantage  is  neutralized  by  his  loss,  and 
he  is  neither  gainer  nor  loser.  If  wheat  and  other  things 
be  low,  he  gains  in  his  purchases  as  much  as  he  loses  by 
his  sales.  In  either  case  he  stands  on  the  same  plane  as 
before. 

If,  therefore,  all  our  people  were  producers  to  the  same 
extent  that  they  are  consumers,  a  general  rise  or  fall  in  prices 
would  work  neither  loss  nor  gain,  —  at  least  so  far  as  the 
present  inquiry  extends.  But  less  than  half  our  people  are 
producers  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term.  Nearly  all 
children  are  consumers  only.  So  also  are  many  women ; 
much  the  larger  part  of  our  adult  female  population  being 
an  essential  part  of  the  home  circle  and  contributing  to  the 
comforts  and  happiness  there,  but  producing  nothing  which 
can  be  offered  as  products  in  the  markets  of  the  country. 
Even  among  the  men  a  large  number  consume  more  than 
they  produce. 

The  consumers,  therefore,  are  far  more  numerous  than 
the  producers ;  and  if  law  is  to  interfere  with  trade  at  all, 
it  should  do  so  in  their  interests.  Unless  it  be  true  that 
legislation  ought  to  favor  classes  rather  than  the  majority, 
the  consumers  should  have  the  vote  of  Congressmen.  But 
they  have  not  had  it,  at  least  since  1861.  The  entire 
course  of  our  legislation  under  the  Morrill  Tariff  has  had 
exclusive  regard  to  producers ;  and  the  large  majority  of 
our  people,  as  consumers,  have  been  quite  ignored,  even 
if  they  have  been  heard  at  all.  Amidst  the  clamors  of  the 
producer,  the  quiet  consumer  has  been  overlooked,  and 
his  voice  has  been  heard  neither  in  the  lobby  nor  in  the 
committee-room.  He  is  a  forgotten  party,  while  the 
wordy  producer  has  the  ear  of  legislation.  Thus  every  tax 
laid  for  protective  purposes  has  been  a  levy  upon  consum- 
ers, who,  sometimes  out  of  ignorance,  sometimes  out  of  a 
weak  submission,  and  sometimes  out  of  an  impression  that 


90  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

it  is  a  blessing  instead  of  a  blight,  patiently  submit  to  the 
extortion. 

In  this  respect  the  Report  of  the  Tariff  Commission  of 
1882  is,  as  Horace  Greeley  used  to  say,  "mighty  interest- 
ing reading."  The  reader  who  will  go  through  its  2,617 
pages  can  not  fail  to  be  impressed  and  disgusted  with  the 
fact  that  nine  tenths  of  the  persons  whose  appeals  are  there 
published  —  5  79  in  all  —  made  them  from  a  pure  and 
confessed  attitude  of  selfishness.  The  producers  of  nearly 
every  article  known  to  our  market  appeared  before  the 
Commission  to  show  reason  why  their  special  industry 
should  have  government  recognition,  and  more  of  it  than 
it  now  enjoys.  The  nature  of  the  pleas  is  in  an  endless 
variety ;  but  they  all  agree  in  being  a  neck-break  scramble 
for  the  coveted  protection.  The  antagonisms  are  some- 
times very  amusing ;  and  the  pleaders  are  often  the  best 
witnesses  against  their  own  cause.  The  modest  consumer 
is  not  present  to  make  his  speech.  His  cause  goes  by 
default,  except  that  a  few  strong  voices  are  raised  in  vain 
protest.  Nothing  more  shameful  has  ever  occurred  in 
Congress  or  out  of  it  than  this  long  portrayal  of  greed  in 
its  efforts  to  secure  with  one  hand  more  discrimination 
in  its  behalf,  while  with  the  other  it  strives  to  withhold  the 
favor  from  every  one  else. 

In  the  making  of  tariffs  it  has  been  overlooked  or  else 
ignored  that  when  all  producers  are  raised  upon  a  high  ar- 
tificial platform,  it  has  become  more  difficult  than  ever  for 
consumers  to  reach  the  good  things  to  be  found  there. 
Since  protection  of  necessity  means  high  prices,  the  more 
widely  it  is  extended  and  the  higher  its  range,  the  more 
harmful  does  it  become  to  all  consumers,  who  are  the 
mass  of  the  people. 

Let  us  take  an  illustration,  as  being  better  than  a  syllo- 
gism. For  many  years  we  have  had  a  high  import  tax  on 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  91 

quinine,  so  that  all  purchasers  of  this  indispensable  drug 
have  been  compelled  to  pay  tribute  to  the  American  man- 
ufacturers. Who  are  these  producers?  A.  A.  Mellier, 
wholesale  druggist  of  St.  Louis,  testified  before  the  Tariff 
Commission  (see  their  Report,  page  1254)  that  there  are 
but  five  manufacturers  of  quinine  in  the  United  States ;  and 
J.  A.  Hutchinson,  druggist  of  Atlanta,  testified  (see  page 
1285)  that  the  single  firm  of  Powers  and  Weightman,  of 
Philadelphia,  has  almost  the  entire  control  of  the  business. 
The  duty,  though  high,  was  not  entirely  prohibitive,  the 
importation  amounting  to  nearly  $1,000,000  yearly.  This 
shows  two  things,  —  first,  that  without  the  duty  quinine 
would  have  been  cheaper  by  at  least  the  amount  of  the 
tax ;  and  second,  that  since  the  imported  and  the  domes- 
tic drug  were  both  sold  at  the  same  price,  the  American 
manufacturer  pocketed  the  entire  amount  of  the  duty  on  all 
that  he  produced.  This  is  apparent  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  he  was  not  weighted  with  an  antecedent  tax  on 
cinchona  bark. 

Quinine  is  as  much  a  staple  in  medicine  as  sugar  is  in 
groceries ;  and  yet  it  appears  that  the  entire  American  peo- 
ple, as  consumers,  have  been  paying  for  nearly  twenty  years 
a  tax  on  the  drug  in  order  to  enrich  five  firms,  represent- 
ing perhaps  a  dozen  men.  After  these  men  had  been  made 
millionnaires  by  this  stream  of  tribute  flowing  into  their  tills 
from  the  ailments  of  our  people,  the  tax  was  repealed,  and 
the  retail  price  of  the  drug  soon  fell  over  fifty  per  cent. 
This,  then,  was  the  measure  of  the  subsidy  which  the  peo- 
ple for  these  years  have  been  handing  over  to  a  few  men 
who  had  a  legal  monopoly.  It  is  now  probable  that  our 
people  in  the  ague-belt  will  be  allowed  to  fight  malaria 
with  the  quinine  of  Milan  and  Mannheim  as  well  as  that  of 
Philadelphia  and  New  York. 

Like  quinine,  we  have  taxed  for  a  generation,  and  are 


92  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

still  taxing,  foreign  marble  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  owners 
of  marble  quarries  at  Rutland,  Vt,  so  that  a  man  pays  trib- 
ute even  for  his  own  tombstone,  as  formerly  he  did  in  Eng- 
land for  his  woollen  shroud.  We  tax  Cuban  sugar,  an 
article  of  universal  consumption,  not  to  produce  revenue, 
but  in  order  to  make  it  possible  for  a  few  cane-growers  in 
Louisiana,  who  produce  less  than  one  per  cent  of  our 
sugar,  to  sell  their  goods  in  an  artificial  market.  We  have 
taxed  foreign  copper  and  raised  the  price  of  every  article 
in  which  that  metal  is  used,  in  order  to  please  and  enrich  a 
few  men  who  are  the  owners  of  copper  mines  on  the  south- 
ern shore  of  Lake  Superior.  Thus  one  might  drop  the  eye 
down  the  columns  of  our  protective  schedules,  to  find  them 
favorable  to  a  few  producers,  and  as  much  opposed  to  many 
consumers,  —  a  thousand  of  the  latter  to  one  of  the  former. 
Is  the  tribute  which  the  people  pay  any  the  less  a  burden 
because  it  is  so  infinitely  subdivided  among  our  millions  of 
people,  and  presses  in  such  a  hidden  and  indirect  way  that 
it  defies  the  power  of  definite  calculation  ? 

If  Congress  shall  place  an  import  tax  of  a  hundred  per 
cent  on  steel,  it  may  reduce  importations,  as  it  is  intended 
to  do.  If  this  reduction  equals  the  original  home  produc- 
tion of  steel,  it  will  double  the  sales  of  the  American  pro- 
ducers, so  as  to  supply  the  demand.  If,  also,  under  this 
monopoly  they  shall  double  the  price,  as  they  may  do  if 
they  choose,  and  as  they  have  usually  done  in  fact,  and  as 
they  must  do  if  the  Government  gets  any  revenue  from  steel, 
their  profits  have  been  increased  much  more  than  fourfold. 
This  is  apparent  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  natural 
profit  of  manufacture  is  now  artificially  increased  by  the 
entire  amount  of  the  duty.  But  every  dollar  of  their  profit 
has  come  from  the  savings  of  men  who  purchase  steel  or 
some  article  in  which  it  is  used.  Thus  open  as  well  as 
close  monopolies  compel  consumers  to  buy  domestic  goods 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  93 

instead  of  foreign  ones,  and  to  pay  for  an  article  more  than 
it  is  worth.  If  they  do  not  do  this,  they  fail  in  the  chief 
purpose  for  which  they  were  created. 

In  addition  to  footing  the  bill  thus  extorted  on  domestic 
products,  the  purchaser  must  also  pay  the  increased  price 
on  the  entire  volume  of  imports.  Even  protectionists  do 
not  often  have  the  courage  to  make  duties  so  high  as  to  be 
prohibitive,  and  hence  the  importation  continues,  though 
often  in  diminished  volume.  These  goods  are  necessa- 
rily offered  only  at  the  raised  price  to  offset  the  import  tax. 
They  would  not  have  been  brought  to  the  United  States  at 
all  had  not  the  difference  between  the  foreign  and  the  do- 
mestic price  been,  at  the  very  least,  equal  to  the  import 
duty  and  the  cost  of  transportation.  To  make  up  the  ag- 
gregate of  loss  to  consumers,  therefore,  the  incidental  bur- 
den, or  increase  of  price  on  importations,  must  be  added 
to  the  protective  burden  or  increase  in  the  price  of  the 
domestic  production.  In  some  articles  this  incidental  tax 
is  far  greater  than  the  benefits  realized  by  the  protected 
producers.  Less  than  one  dollar  in  ten  of  the  millions 
that  we  pay  every  year  as  a  tax  on  sugar  goes  as  a  tribute 
to  the  sugar-makers  of  the  country.  Though  this  in  itself 
may  be  no  disadvantage,  since  the  rest  goes  into  the  treas- 
ury as  revenue,  it  is  sufficient  to  show  how  far  the  burdens 
of  a  protective  monopoly  exceed  its  benefits  as  a  scheme 
to  foster  our  industries. 

It  is  a  necessary  part  of  protection  to  ignore  consu- 
mers. Since  their  interests  are  opposed  to  the  interests 
of  producers,  it  is  impossible  to  benefit  the  latter  without 
detriment  to  the  former.  It  may  be  an  act  of  benevolence 
to  confer  a  bounty  on  the  lumber  magnates  and  the  coal 
barons,  but  it  is  not  good  economy  if  it  is  to  be  exacted 
from  every  man  who  lives  in  a  wooden  house  or  sits  by  a 
coal  fire.  Are  the  manufacturers  of  commodities  more 


94  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

worthy  of  encouragement  than  the  purchasers?  If  it  is 
the  purpose  of  the  law  to  cause  domestic  exchanges  in- 
stead of  foreign  ones,  are  not  buyers  as  essential  thereto 
as  the  sellers?  The  two  classes  are  perfect  counterparts. 
But  many  consumers  are  also  producers,  so  that  even  if 
protection  could  become  universal,  it  would,  while  injuring 
all  who  are  consumers  only,  benefit  all  others  in  one  rela- 
tion, and  injure  them  in  the  other.  Besides  this,  protection 
discriminates  in  favor  of  producers  of  material  products 
only.  But  many  of  our  most  useful  citizens  are  not  pro- 
ducers in  that  sense.  Preachers  spend  their  efforts  in  ad- 
vancing religion ;  teachers,  knowledge ;  lawyers,  justice  ; 
physicians,  health  ;  bankers,  money  exchanges  ;  merchants, 
commodity  exchanges;  politicians,  legislation,  —  and  thus 
on  to  the  end.  None  of  these  can  be  protected,  and  they 
are  as  much  taxed  as  though  they  were  consumers  only, 
and  not  producers  at  all.  Again,  much  less  than  half  of 
our  producers,  even  of  material  values,  can  be  covered  by 
the  blanket  of  protection.  All  farmers,  all  laborers,  all 
workers  at  handicrafts,  as  blacksmiths,  carpenters,  printers, 
all  makers  of  goods  which  are  used  where  they  are  pro- 
duced, all  transporters  and  carriers,  all  makers  of  goods 
exported  but  not  also  imported,  —  all  are  of  necessity  left 
without  any  direct  benefits  from  the  protection  accorded 
those  large  concerns  usually  quartered  in  immense  facto- 
ries and  controlling  vast  aggregations  of  money.  What  a 
small  per  cent  of  our  people  get  the  benefit  claimed  for 
protection  ! 

Consumers  are  not  only  left  without  protection,  but  they 
are  obliged  to  foot  the  bill  of  those  who  are  protected. 
There  is  no  one  else  to  do  it.  Whenever  they  make  a 
purchase  of  any  article  named  in  the  tariff,  the  tax  is  a 
part  of  the  price,  lying  concealed,  but  not  the  less  really 
present.  These  little  tax  levies,  made  all  over  the  country 


JS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  95 

in  countless  thousands  of  petty  purchases,  extort,  in  the 
total,  vast  sums,  which  pass  on  to  swell  the  profits  of 
the  protected  producers.  This  is  one  of  the  causes  of  the 
growing  disproportion  in  the  wealth  of  our  people.  These 
streams  of  forced  contribution  from  every  home  and  from 
every  pocket  in  the  land  into  the  bank  account  of  the 
protected  producer  often  make  him  purse-proud  in  his 
abounding  wealth,  while  they  cause  the  people  to  feel  the 
pressure  of  "the  hidden  hand"  of  taxation. 

One  day  it  will  be  clearly  seen  by  our  voters  that  the  evil 
of  taxation  is  at  the  minimum  when  it  does  not  interfere 
with  prices  and  the  cost  of  production ;  that  good  legisla- 
tion is  far  more  likely  to  be  the  child  even  of  poverty  than 
of  superfluous  wealth ;  and  that  no  injustice  of  the  age  is 
more  inexcusable  than  that  of  compelling  millions  of  con- 
sumers to  bear  a  heavy  burden  of  taxation,  not  in  order  to 
produce  the  necessary  public  revenues,  but  in  order  to 
pass  the  levy  over  as  a  gratuity  to  a  few  thousand  favored 
producers,  who  stand  as  beggars  at  the  treasury,  but  who 
are,  for  the  most  part,  already  abounding  in  wealth  from 
government  subsidies. 


CHAPTER   IX. 


IS  PROTECTION  THE  CAUSE  OF  OUR   PROSPERITY? 


HE  United  States  have  had  a  wonderful  growth. 
July  orators  scarcely  need  assure  us  of  the  fact. 
Although  one  of  the  youngest  of  the  nations, 
our  prosperity  has  been  so  marked  as  to  attract 
the  admiring  attention  of  Europe  and  the  world. 

When  it  is  proposed  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  this 
growth,  it  has  become  quite  the  custom  among  protection- 
ists to  point  to  our  high  taxes.  A  generation  ago  it  was 
the  custom  to  ascribe  our  prosperity  to  negro  slavery.  Now 
it  is  the  custom  to  ascribe  it  to  the  protective  tariff.  Writers 
and  campaign  orators  often  "point  with  pride  "  to  the  fact 
of  our  national  growth,  and  forthwith  leap  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  is  the  result  of  our  fiscal  system.  In  truth,  it 
has  become  quite  the  custom  to  adduce  tabulated  statistics 
to  prove  that  the  country  has  grown  and  increased  in  wealth 
under  protection,  and  then  with  "  a  serene  and  starlit  faith  " 
to  assert  that  it  is  a  result  of  protection. 

All  good  citizens  are  glad  to  concede  the  fact  of  growth 
and  prosperity;  but  when  it  is  boldly  assumed  that  it  is 
the  net  product  of  protective  taxation,  it  may  be  time  to 
call  a  halt,  and  examine  the  ground  for  such  a  statement. 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  97 

There  is  a  fallacy  known  to  logicians  as  post  hoc,  ergo 
f  ropier  hoc,  —  after  this,  therefore  on  account  of  this.  To 
illustrate  :  The  air  is  chilly  after  a  summer  rain  ;  therefore 
the  rain  caused  the  chilliness.  About  March  2 1  a  heavy 
rain,  a  cold  wave,  or  a  cyclone  occurs ;  therefore  it  is 
caused  by  the  vernal  equinox.  The  Goodwin  sand-bar  did 
not  exist  till  the  erection  of  Tenterden  steeple ;  therefore 
the  steeple  was  the  cause  of  the  sands.  The  Chinaman 
had  excellent  health  in  his  family  until  his  neighbor  built 
a  chimney  in  a  direct  line  with  his  own;  therefore  the 
chimney  caused  the  death  of  his  children.  No  thought- 
ful man  could  take  these  logical  leaps,  and  yet  they  are 
samples  of  a  very  common  fallacy.  To  adduce  all  the  pon- 
derous enginery  of  fact  and  figures  to  prove  our  prosperity 
(a  thing  which  no  one  has  ever  denied),  and  thereupon 
flippantly  to  assume  that  it  is  caused  by  protection  (the 
very  question  at  issue),  is  a  course  which  marks  the  soph- 
ist and  a  failing  cause.  There  are  no  bridges  to  span  such 
a  chasm  in  logic.  Is  this  plea  of  protectionists  zpost  hoc, 
ergo  propter  hoc  ? 

Protection,  as  shown,  is  in  no  sense  a  producer.  The 
tariff  has  never  added  one  day's  labor  or  one  dollar's  value 
to  the  productions  of  the  country.  It  can  not  add  another 
acre  to  our  land  area,  nor  create  an  additional  laborer,  nor 
turn  out  a  single  product,  either  gross  or  finished.  It  does 
but  re-distribute  what  has  been  already  produced.  It  takes 
from  the  savings  of  one  man  and  passes  it  over  into  the 
profits  of  another.  Increase  of  wealth  is  caused  by  labor, 
not  by  law. 

When  a  high  tax  is  placed  on  foreign  iron  or  steel  in  the 
name  of  protection  to  home  industries,  the  price  of  the 
domestic  iron  and  steel  is  advanced  to  all  consumers,  since 
the  producers  have  the  power,  and  this  was  the  chief  end 
of  the  tariff.  This  prospect  of  excessive  profits  stimulates 

7 


98  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

the  production,  and  the  cash  value  of  the  home  product  is 
larger  than  before,  because  of  both  a  larger  yield  and  a 
higher  price.  But  this  increase  is  not  gain.  It  is  rather 
an  abnormal  development  of  the  iron  industry  at  the  ex- 
pense of  all  other  industries,  since  capital  and  labor  have 
been  induced  to  leave  occupations  moderately  and  natu- 
rally profitable,  and  to  enter  one  made  by  law  excessively 
and  artificially  profitable.  The  country  has  increased  in 
wealth  in  the  same  way  as  a  man  would  increase  in  wealth 
by  taking  his  money  out  of  one  pocket  and  putting  it  into 
another. 

Nay,  we  can  scarcely  say  even  this ;  for  the  change  of 
occupation  involves  a  waste  of  capital  and  a  loss  of  the 
skill  previously  acquired,  so  that  the  aggregate  wealth  is 
even  less  than  it  was  before.  Suppose  a  carpenter  whose 
efficiency  as  a  workman  was  high,  say  20,  should  quit  the 
bench  and  work  at  the  anvil.  As  a  blacksmith,  for  a  time 
at  least,  his  efficiency  will  be  low,  say  10.  Even  though  by 
reason  of  local  circumstances  he  should  sell  his  labor  at  the 
anvil  at  a  higher  price  than  at  the  bench,  and  so  make  a 
greater  profit  to  himself,  yet,  since  his  production  is  smaller, 
the  country  in  the  aggregate  is  a  loser  by  fifty  per  cent  of 
his  former  production.  In  the  same  way  protection  en- 
tails a  positive  waste,  by  the  act  of  conferring  unnatural 
profits  upon  any  favored  industry. 

There  is  no  question  that  protection  does  stimulate  pro- 
duction in  the  protected  industries.  Steel,  iron,  sugar,  and 
woollen  goods  have  rapidly  increased  under  the  Merrill 
Tariff.  But  this  does  not  constitute  even  a  presumption 
that  the  country  has  been  a  sharer  therein,  unless  a  tariff 
be  a  productive  force  of  itself.  It  is  easy  to  see  the  in- 
crease; but  to  call  it  national  gain  would  be  to  take  a 
wholly  superficial  view.  With  as  good  show  of  reason 
might  a  State,  county,  or  city  treasurer  argue  that  direct 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 


99 


taxation  increases  the  wealth  of  the  country,  since  it  fills 
his  vaults. 

The  courtiers  who  enjoyed  the  close  monopolies  granted 
by  Queen  Elizabeth  usually  pleaded  for  them  on  the  ground 
of  public  economy,  arguing  that  the  privilege  of  the  ex- 
clusive trade  in  the  given  article  would  justify  them  in 
providing  the  best  and  cheapest  mode  of  manufacture  or 
importation,  giving  employment  to  additional  laborers,  and 
thus  developing  a  new  industry,  to  the  advantage  of  the 
kingdom.  In  their  view  these  assumed  advantages  quite 
balanced  the  increased  cost  which  all  the  people  of  Eng- 
land paid  for  the  article  in  order  to  profit  one  man  or  one 
company.  The  protectionists  of  to-day  have  not  improved 
on  this  sophistical  plea ;  they  have  only  elaborated  it. 
Keeping  the  extravagant  profits  of  the  protected  industries 
out  of  sight,  the  above  are  exactly  the  same  representations 
as  are  heard  every  day  from  the  lips  of  protectionists,  and 
are  read  in  their  journals. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  public  discontent  and  the 
sufferings  in  England  and  Ireland  spring  from  the  adoption 
of  free  trade  in  Great  Britain ;  and  the  inference  is  drawn 
that  protection  has  saved  us  from  similar  ills.  But  the 
newspapers  of  Great  Britain,  which,  as  with  us,  are  usually 
reliable  reflectors  of  public  sentiment,  do  not  mention  this 
as  a  cause.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  conceded  that  the  con- 
dition of  the  English  and  Irish  masses  has  greatly  improved 
since  the  adoption  of  free  trade,  and  that  the  present  dis- 
tress arises  chiefly  from  the  laws  relating  to  the  inheritance 
and  tenure  of  land,  the  rights  of  landlords,  and  the  customs 
respecting  rents.  Furthermore,  the  sufferings  of  the  lower 
classes  are  not  greater  in  Great  Britain  than  in  Germany 
and  other  protective  countries. 

Protectionists  are  accustomed  to  say,  in  substance,  this : 
Before  the  war,  while  we  were  yet  under  a  tariff  for  revenue, 


100  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

we  increased  slowly  in  population,  and  had  no  manufac- 
tures to  speak  of,  and  no  home  markets.  Wages  were 
reduced,  and  hard  times  prevailed.  We  were  almost  ex- 
clusively an  agricultural  people.  Prosperity  came  in  only 
with  protection. 

After  making  some  allowance  for  that  broadness  of  asser- 
tion which  springs  from  zeal,  it  would  scarcely  be  possible 
to  draw  up  a  more  compact  statement  of  errors  than  this. 
An  examination  of  the  official  records  will  show  its  fallacy. 

1.  Under  partial  free  trade  our  population  increased, 
as   shown  by  the  census,  from    17,069,453   in  1840,   to 
23,191,876  in  1850,  —  a  gain  of  thirty-six  per  cent.     The 
population  in  1860,  after  ten  years  of  revenue  tariff,  was 
31,443,321,  —  a  gain  of  thirty-five  per  cent.     In  1870  the 
population,  after  nine  years  of  protection,  was  38,558,371, — 
a  gain  of  twenty-three  per  cent.     In  1880,  after  another 
decade  of  high  tariff,  the  population  was  50,155,783,  —  a 
gain  of  thirty  per  cent.     Thus  if  increase  of  population  be 
an   evidence   of   prosperity,   the   census    decides    against 
protection. 

2.  That  protection  does  not  operate  as  a  cause  of  immi- 
gration is  shown  by  three  facts,  —  first,  that  the  ratio  of 
immigration  to  the  whole  population  was   greater  under 
the  Walker  Tariff  than  under  the  Morrill ;  second,  that  a 
majority  of  the  immigrants  enter  agriculture  or  other  pur- 
suits in  which  protection  is  not  possible ;  third,  that  a  much 
larger  number  of  immigrants  come  from  highly  protected 
Germany  than  from  free  trade  England.    They  do  not  need 
to  come  to  America  to  get  the  blessings  of  protection. 

3.  According  to  the  census  of  1860  the  total  of  our  manu- 
factures was  $1,885,861,676,  —  an  increase  of  eighty-five  per 
cent  for  the  ten  years  under  a  revenue  tariff,  which  was  more 
than  twice  as  rapid  as  population.     In  1870  the  country 
had  a  depreciated  currency  and  fictitious  values.    The  Com- 


JS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  IQI 

missioner  of  the  Census  in  equalizing  valuations  of  1860  with 
1870  tinds  that  the  increase  of  manufactures  for  the  decade 
was  seventy-nine  per  cent,  and  that  the  increase  from  1870 
to  1880  was  fifty-eight  per  cent.  These  are  the  figures  in 
the  case  of  gross  products.  The  table  of  net  values  is  still 
more  striking.  According  to  it,  the  increase  of  manufac- 
tures for  the  decade  of  low  tariff  was  eighty-four  per  cent : 
for  the  first  decade  under  high  protection  it  was  sixty-three 
per  cent;  and  for  the  second,  forty-one  per  cent.  The 
table  showing  the  increase  in  the  amount  of  capital  invested 
in  manufactures  in  the  same  periods  shows  a  similar  result. 
Thus  by  the  official  returns  it  appears  that  the  country 
grew  faster  even  in  the  manufacturing  industries  under 
the  Walker  Tariff  than  under  the  Morrill,  although  these 
are  the  very  ones  which  it  is  supposed  that  protection  would 
most  greatly  stimulate. 

4.  Protectionists  always  assert  that  their  system  blesses 
the  country  by  securing  a  home  market  for  our  farmers  and 
others.  It  is  sufficient  at  present  to  remark  that  in  1860 
only  five  per  cent  of  our  cereal  production  was  exported, 
leaving  ninety-five  per  cent  for  home  use.  In  1880,  thirty- 
six  per  cent  was  exported,  and  sixty-four  per  cent  left  for 
domestic  needs.  Hence  our  home  market  for  farm  prod- 
ucts was  in  a  higher  ratio  in  1860  than  in  1880. 

If  we  look  on  the  other  side  of  the  home  market  ar- 
gument, it  will  appear,  as  will  be  shown  elsewhere,  that 
instead  of  becoming  under  protection  commercially  inde- 
pendent of  foreign  skill,  there  never  has  been  a  time  when 
the  people  of  our  country  consumed  so  much  of  the  manu- 
factured products  of  other  lands,  notwithstanding  our  pro- 
tective device  to  shut  them  out. 

But  what  follows  if  this  should  be  denied  ?  It  must  then 
be  true  that,  by  cutting  off  the  entry  of  foreign  goods,  pro- 
tection secures  a  home  market  by  compelling  our  people  to 


IO2  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

buy  domestic  commodities.  Instead  of  being  gentle  in  its 
influence,  the  method  of  protection  is  an  arbitrary  legal 
compulsion.  It  has  the  crack  of  the  slave-driver's  whip  in 
forcing  the  sale  of  home  manufactures,  whether  the  people 
prefer  them  or  not.  This  horn  of  the  dilemma  is  no  more 
agreeable  than  the  other. 

5.  In  regard  to  wages,  it  may  be  said,  as  will  be  shown 
elsewhere,  that  wages,  which  were  extremely  low  under  the 
protective  tariff  of  Clay,  rose  almost  steadily  for  fifteen  years 
under  the  Walker  Tariff  till   1860;   that  although  wages 
were  higher  under  the  depreciated  currency  from  1860  to 
1870,  yet  they  fell  an  average  of  forty  per  cent  during  the 
decade  ending  in  1880  under  high  protection;    and  that 
to-day  wages  in  the  most  highly  protected  industries  are 
the  lowest  ever  known  therein. 

6.  As  to  hard  times  and  bankruptcy,  an  examination  of 
the  statistics  shows  that  there  were  more  heavy  failures  from 
1873  to  1878  under  high  protection  than  in  all  the  years  of 
low  tariff  for  a  generation.     In  the  one  year  1877  we  had 
more  strikes,  more  labor  riots,  more  lock-outs,  more  tramps, 
and  more  forced  idleness  than  in  any  ten  years  under  par- 
tial free  trade. 

7.  A  living  witness  is  Mr.  Morrill  himself,  the  author  of 
the  tariff  and  a  stalwart  protectionist.     On  March  12,  1862, 
he  made  a  speech  in  the  House  in  which  he  dwelt  upon  the 
"prodigious  growth"  of  our  manufactures  between  1850 
and  1860.     After  specifying,  he  used  these  words  :  "  Such 
facts  should  make  every  man  with  an  American  heart  in 
his  bosom  glow  with  pride." 

The  fact  is,  we  have  prospered  under  all  our  tariffs ;  but 
in  most  lines  of  progress  we  have  grown  most  rapidly  under 
revenue  tariff.  The  following  table,  compiled  from  the  offi- 
cial records — the  United  States  censuses  —  by  Mr.  Philpott, 
editor  of  "  The  Million,"  shows  this  most  conclusively  :  — 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 


103 


Per   cent   of  in- 

Average per  cent 

crease  over  pre- 

of increase  for 

LINES  OF  PROGRESS. 

vious  decade  for 
ten  years  under 

the  two  decades 
under     Momll 

Walker  Tariff: 

Tariff     above 

1850-1860. 

the    census    of 

1860. 

Population      

•Jt    C 

Wealth  

JJ-5 
126.6 

61  o 

111 

AC  ft 

Foreign  commerce,  per  capita  .     .     . 
Miles  of  railroads   

70-3 

2AO 

I5'2 
60 

Railroads,  per  capita  

I  CO 

Capital  in  manufactures  

90 

66 

Total  wages  in  manufactures    .     .     . 

60-3 

58-2 

Wages  in  manufactures,  per  hand 

17-3 

9-4 

Products     

8q 

696 

Value  of  farms    

IO1 

2t  6 

Farm  tools  and  machinery    .... 

62 

27.7 

Live-stock  on  farms     .... 

IOO 

17  1 

No  one  could  urge  that  this  state  of  affairs  was  caused 
exclusively,  or  even  chiefly,  by  any  tariff ;  but  these  facts 
show  that  the  standard  claims  made  for  protection  as  usher- 
ing in  a  period  of  national  prosperity  to  succeed  an  era  of 
public  misfortune,  is  not  even  within  "  a  shouting  distance 
of  the  truth." 

The  further  fact  is  that  the  natural  laws  have  been  more 
potent  than  the  human  ones.  Although  certain  industries 
have  been  greatly  stimulated  by  legislation,  their  growth  has 
been  eclipsed  by  others  which  it  was  impossible  to  cover 
by  the  mantle  of  protection.  Under  the  Morrill  Tariff  the 
production  of  pig-iron,  which  has  had  high  protection  for 
twenty  years,  increased  from  1860  to  1880  over  eight  hun- 
dred per  cent.  During  the  same  time  the  petroleum  indus- 
try increased  8,817  Per  cent.  Many  other  examples  could 
be  given  to  show  that  protection  is  not  the  controlling  factor 
in  the  growth  of  the  country.  They  furnish  a  strong  pre- 
sumption, if  not  proof,  that  our  increase  in  prosperity  has 


104  /«?  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

been  along  the  line  of  natural  development,  and  that  protec- 
tion has  scarcely  had  any  further  effect  than  to  misdirect  the 
natural  course  of  our  wealth. 

Many  things  have  occurred  in  Congress  and  out  of  it 
which  give  color  to  the  inference  that  protectionists  them- 
selves either  do  not  believe  in  their  own  theories,  or  else 
are  willing  to  be  so  sophistical  as  to  argue  that  protection 
is  a  public  advantage  when  they  know  it  is  only  a  private 
one.  What  are  some  of  these  ? 

1.  No  adherent  of  protection  can  with  any  consistency 
vote  for  or  advocate  a  treaty  of  reciprocity  with  any  for- 
eign Power,  since  reciprocity  must  injure  the  country  if 
protection  is  a  benefit.     But  protectionists  in  Congress  are 
found  to  speak  and  vote  for  treaties  of  reciprocal  trade  side 
by  side  with  free-traders. 

2.  In  recent  years  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain  not  only 
set  the  example  of  arbitration  as  a  means  of  adjusting  in- 
ternational differences,  but  one  of  its  articles  provided  for 
the  admission  of  fish  from  British  waters  into  the  United 
States  free  of  duty.    This  article  found  few  opponents  in 
Congress,  though  its  adoption  involved  a  recognition  of  the 
view  that  free  trade,  and  not  protection,  at  least  in  fish, 
would  tend  to  our  prosperity.     Let  Congressmen  remove, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  country,  not  only  the  duty  on  British 
fish,  but  on  the  hooks  and  nets  which  catch  them,  on  the 
boats  and  ships  employed,  and  on  the  food  and  clothing  of 
the  fishermen.     Let  them  carry  the  good  work  to  its  logical 
limit,  and  remove  all  those  restrictions  and   taxes  which 
benefit  a  few  while  they  injure  all.    If  protection  is  unequal, 
it  is  unjust,  and  hence  works  ruin  instead  of  prosperity. 
Only  that  which  is  fair  to  all  can  ever  elevate  a  people  in 
either  wealth  or  morals. 

3.  The  Chicago  fire  occurred  in  1871.     As  soon  as  the 
shock  of  the  calamity  had  passed,  the  people  of  that  city 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 


105 


petitioned  Congress  to  remove  the  tariff  on  those  articles 
which  it  might  be  necessary  to  use  in  the  rebuilding  of  the 
city.  Congress,  by  large  majorities  in  both  Houses,  granted 
the  petition,  thus  as  from  instinct  confessing  that  a  pro- 
tective tariff,  at  least  on  building  material,  is  an  oppressive 
burden  on  the  people.  If  consistent,  Congress  would  have 
said  to  the  people  of  Chicago  :  You  are  mistaken.  Protec- 
tion is  a  blessing  to  the  country.  The  higher  the  import 
taxes  on  building  material,  the  cheaper  you  will  reconstruct 
your  city.  Since  the  tariff  is  the  cause  of  our  prosperity, 
we  can  best  show  our  sympathy  for  you  by  retaining  or 
raising  the  import  taxes  which  you  ask  to  have  remitted. 
On  this  occasion,  at  least,  Congress  was  controlled  by  its 
impulses  of  sympathy  and  its  convictions,  rather  than  by 
its  lobbies  and  its  theories.  But  the  next  year  the  Boston 
fire  occurred.  When  the  Bostonians  made  a  similar  peti- 
tion, Congress  had  already  taken  alarm,  and  the  petition 
was  rejected.  It  saw  the  stern  logic  of  the  transaction  into 
which  its  sympathies  had  led  it. 

The  entire  people  felt  that  protection  created  scarcity 
and  high  prices,  and  was  such  a  restriction  on  growth  that 
in  the  presence  of  a  great  calamity  it  was  hardly  endurable. 
The  remission  of  the  duties  in  the  special  case  made  the 
people  ask  why  a  protective  tariff  is  an  evil  for  burned 
Chicago,  but  a  factor  of  prosperity  for  the  rest  of  the  coun- 
try. They  could  not  but  raise  the  query,  why  it  is  a  bene- 
fit to  strike  down  the  tariff  on  one  line  of  imposts,  but  an 
advantage  to  retain  it  on  all  else.  Thousands  of  people 
wished  to  know  whether  a  repeal  of  protective  duties  which 
is  advantageous  to  those  temporarily  made  destitute,  would 
not  also  be  beneficial  to  those  made  by  other  causes  per- 
manently poor. 

The  question  recurs,  Is  protection  the  cause  of  our  pros- 
perity ?  Protected  men  are  telling  us  unceasingly  that  this 


106  /S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

business  must  stop  unless  the  country  be  taxed  for  their  sup- 
port. Will  the  wealth  of  the  country  be  increased  by  a  man 
who  is  in  a  losing  business  ?  Can  we  become  wealthy  so  long 
as  the  savings  of  one  class  of  our  people  are  legally  spirited 
away  to  cancel  the  losses  of  another  class?  Can  wealth 
rapidly  increase  so  long  as  we  are  handicapped  with  the 
support  of  poor-houses  and  subsidized  manufacturers  which 
absorb  the  surplus  of  our  people  and  station  a  silent  tax- 
gatherer  at  the  front  door  of  every  home  in  the  land  ? 

It  is  safe  to  assert  that  the  conclusion  that  protection  is 
the  cause  of  our  prosperity  is  a  post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc. 
To  say  that  we  have  prospered  under  protection,  and  that, 
therefore,  protection  has  been  the  cause  of  our  prosperity, 
is  exactly  the  course  of  reasoning  a  man  would  adopt  who, 
being  a  passenger  on  a  vessel  going  up  stream,  "should 
tow  a  bucket  behind,  and  insist  that  it  helped  the  boat 
along  because  it  still  went  ahead."  Equally  as  pertinent 
and  logical  was  the  claim  of  the  old-time  slaveholders,  that 
since  we  had  steadily  increased  in  wealth  during  two  centu- 
ries of  negro  slavery,  that  "  peculiar  institution  "  was  the 
cause  of  our  prosperity.  Again,  with  equally  as  good  reason 
can  it  be  shown  that  the  building  of  railroads  is  the  cause 
of  our  prosperity,  since  when  the  first  mile  of  track  was 
laid  we  had  a  population  of  only  ten  millions,  but  now  we 
have  sixty.  We  should  leap  over  the  same  kind  of  a  logical 
chasm  if  we  should  assert  that  circus-shows  have  been  the 
cause  of  our  prosperity,  since  when  the  first  travelling 
showmen  exhibited  in  our  largest  cities,  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  were  really  mere  villages,  with  only  a  local 
trade,  but  now,  under  the  stimulus  of  numerous  circuses, 
they  have  become  metropolitan  in  size  and  international  in 
trade. 

The  facts  are  that  manufactures,  instead  of  being  the 
result  of  protection,  are  the  direct  result  of  our  increase  in 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 


107 


wealth  and  population.  Patagonia  is  not  poor  because  it 
has  no  manufactures,  but  it  has  no  manufactures  because  it 
is  poor.  Protection  has  no  more  to  do  with  promoting  our 
prosperity  than  the  mud  of  the  race-course  has  in  promot- 
ing the  speed  of  the  racers,  or  gravity  with  rolling  the 
teamster's  load  to  the  top  of  the  hill,  or  the  heat  of  the  air 
in  August  with  the  heat  of  the  presidential  campaign  in 
November. 

All  Americans  rejoice  in  the  prosperity  of  the  country. 
But  have  the  blessings  of  fruitful  seasons  and  a  salubrious 
climate  done  nothing  to  bring  it?  Have  the  fertility  of 
our  soil  and  the  wealth  of  our  mines  done  nothing?  Have 
the  productive  energies  of  our  time,  aided  by  machinery 
and  labor-saving  device,  accomplished  so  little?  Have 
the  skill  of  the  artisan  and  the  old-fashioned  but  prudent 
economy  of  our  people  gone  for  naught?  What  an  in- 
sult to  America's  men  and  what  a  slander  on  our  country 
is  the  assertion  of  the  ultra-protectionists,  that  "  without 
protection  we  should  have  been  '  hewers  of  wood  and 
drawers  of  water '  for  British  manufacturers  "  !  Rather  it 
should  be  said  that  the  system  —  misnamed  the  American 
—  has  crippled  our  productive  power,  wasted  our  natural 
advantages,  diminished  our  wealth,  and  lowered  the  scale 
of  comforts  for  the  entire  people. 

We  have  prospered  in  spite  of  protection.  So  mighty 
are  the  elements  of  our  growth  that  we  should  have  been 
prosperous  under  any  possible  financial  policy.  If  high 
protection  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  has  not  been  able  to 
ruin  us,  it  is  only  because  the  forces  of  national  prosperity 
have  been  more  powerful  than  the  causes  of  national  im- 
poverishment. Like  the  human  body,  the  body  politic  has 
a  vital  principle  which  strives  to  throw  off  or  nullify  harm- 
ful influences.  States  often  have  enough  of  this  vis  medi- 
catrix  natures  to  increase  in  prosperity  in  spite  of  all  the 


IO8  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

injuries  which  come  from  friends  as  well  as  from  foes ;  and 
the  more  thrifty  the  country  is,  the  more  is  it  likely  to  be 
subjected  to  such  outrage,  since  the  weak  and  unprosperous 
State  would  die  under  the  calamity,  or  else  the  people, 
goaded  beyond  endurance,  would  rise  in  revolution. 

Law  does  indeed  affect  national  wealth.  But  it  has  done 
its  utmost  in  the  interests  of  public  economy  when  it  clears 
the  field  for  free  activity,  when  it  makes  life  and  property 
secure,  and  when  it  leaves  every  man  free  to  choose  what 
he  can  best  do,  unseduced  by  the  promise  of  excessive  and 
artificial  rewards.  If  every  man  prefers  to  buy  in  a  free 
market ;  if  every  person  realizes  the  largest  profit  when  he 
trades  without  dictation ;  if  every  man  will  manage  his 
own  business  most  advantageously  without  advice  or  help 
from  the  State  ;  if  freedom  tends  to  individual  prosperity,  — 
it  is  incredible  that  the  interference  of  Government  should 
lead  even  in  the  remotest  degree  to  bring  national  pros- 
perity. An  industry  created  by  law  is  like  the  tropical  vine, 
which  twines  itself  about  the  sturdy  tree  and  draws  its 
strength  therefrom,  while  its  only  effect  is  to  dwarf,  paralyze, 
and  destroy. 


CHAPTER  X. 

RELATION   OF   PROTECTION  TO   PRICES. 


HE  chief  object  of  protection  is  to  raise  the  price 
of  articles  produced  in  protected  industries.  To 
speak  with  more  precision,  the  objects  are  two, 
—  first,  to  secure  a  monopoly  of  the  home  mar- 
ket, by  rejecting  importations ;  second,  to  use  this  to  se- 
cure a  rise  in  the  market  price  of  protected  commodities. 
The  latter  is  the  real  essence  of  a  protective  tariff;  the 
former  being  merely  auxiliary  to  it.  The  entire  course  of 
argument  adopted  by  protected  producers  shows  with  clear- 
ness that  a  rise  in  the  scale  of  prices  is  formulated  in  their 
minds  as  the  ultimate  end  to  be  attained.  If  it  be  pro- 
posed to  remove  the  duty  from  a  protected  article,  the 
invariable  answer  is,  "  The  foreign  manufacturer  will  then 
undersell  us."  Indeed,  if  we  remove  from  the  pleas  with 
which  protection  is  always  supported,  the  central  argument 
that  industry  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  can  not  support 
itself  at  the  scale  of  prices  which  would  prevail  in  an  open 
field  of  competition  with  Europe,  we  shall  find  that  all 
other  arguments  are  merely  subordinate  to  it,  and  are 
devoid  of  coherency  when  they  stand  alone. 

The   advocates   of  protection  themselves   very  seldom 
deny  this.     In  fact  they  can  not,  without  abandoning  their 


110  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

debatable  ground.  They  concede  that  if  a  protective  tax 
be  not  attended  by  a  rise  in  the  price  of  protected  goods, 
it  is  but  a  comparatively  fruitless  triumph  of  their  theories, 
and  is  not  worth  contending  for.  A  monopoly  of  the  do- 
mestic market,  though  an  end  to  be  sought  for,  is  of  itself 
a  very  insufficient  victory.  Say  a  hat  costs  in  Europe  $1.00, 
and  the  cost  of  transportation  to  America  is  ten  cents. 
Under  free  trade  the  cost  of  hats  in  New  York  will  be  $1.10 
for  both  the  foreign  and  the  domestic  article.  Place  a  duty 
of  fifty  cents,  and  no  foreign  hat  can  be  sold  for  less  than 
$1.60.  If  the  domestic  price  be  above  that  figure,  the 
protected  producers  will  divide  the  market  with  the  for- 
eigner, the  importations  will  continue  as  abundantly  as 
under  absolute  free  trade,  and  the  tariff  will  not  even  tend 
to  check  it.  Nay,  the  higher  the  price,  the  more  impor- 
tation will  be  stimulated.  Below  $1.60,  the  home  producer 
has  an  absolute  monopoly  of  the  market.  He  can  dictate 
prices  to  suit  himself,  being  secured  against  outside  in- 
terference till  his  prices  touch  $1.60,  —  the  point  where  pro- 
tection ends  and  revenue  begins.  Having  the  power  to 
command  prices  in  excess  of  $1.10,  is  it  within  the  scope 
of  human  belief  that  he  will  hesitate  to  use  his  advantage  ? 
Will  he  be  satisfied  with  a  barren  victory  when  a  substan- 
tial one  is  within  his  reach?  No.  The  very  fact  that  im- 
portation continues,  shows  that  he  makes  the  most  of  his 
advantages.  If,  therefore,  protectionists  themselves  confess 
that  this  is  the  chief  purpose  of  protection,  and  that  without 
this  it  would  not  answer  their  requirements,  the  rest  of  the 
world  may  accept  the  fact  as  a  postulate  in  their  argument. 
But  the  great  world  of  consumers  takes  no  pleasure  in 
this  unnatural  rise  of  prices.  To  them  it  means  diminished 
purchases,  the  satisfaction  of  fewer  desires,  and  a  lower 
scale  of  comforts.  No  purchaser  ever  faced  a  high  market 
from  choice.  It  has,  therefore,  long  been  a  favorite  plea 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  in 

with  protectionists  that,  though  protection  may  cause  a 
rise  in  prices,  yet  after  some  years  the  encouragement 
thus  given  so  stimulates  production  that  competition  among 
producers  for  the  possession  of  the  home  market  will  result 
in  a  permanent  fall  in  price.  This  idea  is  a  standard  one 
in  the  writings  and  speeches  of  all  protectionists.  What 
does  this  mean  ?  Even  if  the  claim  be  a  true  one,  it  means 
that  instead  of  allowing  prices  to  remain  low,  it  is  a  wise 
policy  first  to  raise  them,  in  order  that  they  may  afterward 
be  low.  Instead  of  beginning  with  cheapness,  it  is  neces- 
sary first  to  secure  high  prices,  in  order  that  at  the  end  of 
ten,  twenty,  or  fifty  years,  we  may  have  low  ones.  The 
mere  statement  of  such  an  argument  shows  at  once  its 
hollowness. 

Again,  protectionists  base  their  arguments  in  large  degree 
upon  the  necessity  of  artificial  prices ;  and  on  this  plea 
they  have  won  their  victories  in  Congress  and  before  the 
people.  To  hear  them  soon  after  argue  that  protection 
reduces  prices,  and  claim  this  as  one  of  the  benefits  of  the 
system,  sounds  like  a  paradox  and  the  trick  of  a  demagogue. 
To  what  a  pitch  of  absurdity  has  that  man  attained  who  can 
urge  with  one  breath  that  we  need  protection  in  order  so 
to  raise  prices  that  we  can  compete  with  Europe,  and  with 
the  next  maintain  that  the  effect  of  the  protective  tariff  is 
to  reduce  values  ! 

Let  us  take  the  Morrill  Tariff  as  the  type  of  all.  It  is  a 
fact  that  the  price  of  many  protected  articles  has  fallen 
since  the  first  six  years  of  its  existence,  when  the  scale  of 
prices  was  steadily  upward.  Cotton  fabrics  of  all  kinds 
have  experienced  a  gradual  decline.  So,  also,  in  other, 
protected  industries.  To  adduce  one  of  the  strongest 
illustrations  that  can  be  given,  it  may  be  said  that  the  price 
of  steel  rails  fell  from  $120  a  ton  in  1866  to  less  than  $40 
at  the  present  time.  This  decline  in  price  is  conceded  by 


112  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

all  to  be  a  public  benefit,  and  it  is  common  to  claim  it  as 
one  of  the  legitimate  fruits  of  protection.  The  argument 
when  stated  with  syllogistic  directness  is  this  :  A  low  scale 
of  prices  in  manufactured  articles  is  a  public  advantage  ; 
but  protection,  after  twenty-five  years  under  the  Morrill 
Tariff,  has,  through  competition  of  protected  producers, 
inaugurated  an  era  of  continually  falling  prices :  therefore 
protection  is  an  advantage  to  the  nation.  Let  us  examine 
this  central  argument,  with  a  view  of  testing  its  validity. 

If  a  protective  tariff  correctly  represents  the  difference 
between  the  foreign  and  the  domestic  value  of  goods,  a 
slight  fall  in  the  price  on  this  side  of  the  ocean  must  cause 
an  immediate  stoppage  of  importation  from  the  other  side, 
the  cost  of  production  remaining  constant.  But  the  Morrill 
Tariff  has  not  had  this  effect.  During  most  of  the  time 
since  1861  our  imports  have  increased  more  rapidly  than 
our  population,  in  spite  of  a  tariff  intended  to  be  restrictive 
as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  point  of  prohibition.  This 
shows,  first,  that  our  people  during  all  that  time  have  been 
paying  the  whole  amount  of  the  duty  in  addition  to  the 
natural  price,  both  on  the  domestic  production  and  the 
foreign  imports ;  second,  that  protection  has  not  been  in 
the  remotest  degree  the  cause  of  any  fall  in  price  that  may 
have  occurred. 

From  other  points  of  view,  also,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
only  effect  of  protection  on  prices  is  permanently  to  raise 
them  in  the  industries  thus  favored.  Protection  extends 
to  such  a  number  and  variety  of  articles  that  low  prices 
are  impossible.  In  all  manufactures  an  article  which  is  a 
finished  product  in  one  industry  becomes  the  raw  mate- 
rial in  another.  Thus  in  a  blast-furnace,  ore  is  the  mate- 
rial, pig-iron  the  product ;  in  a  rolling-mill,  pig  is  the 
material,  and  bar-iron  the  product ;  in  a  wire-factory,  bar 
is  the  material,  and  wire  the  product ;  in  a  barbing-factory, 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  113 

smooth  wire  is  the  material,  and  the  barbed  is  the  product. 
Thus  manufacturers  are  obliged  to  buy  their  material  in  a 
protected  market;  and  since  they  pay  high  for  material, 
it  is  impossible  that  they  should  sell  their  product  low. 
It  is  idle  to  expect  woollen  goods  ever  to  be  cheap  so  long 
as  we  forbid  foreign  competition  in  our  market,  and  also 
compel  our  cloth  manufacturer  to  pay  artificial  prices  for 
his  wool,  his  machinery,  his  buildings,  and  the  chemicals 
used  in  his  processes.  It  is  idle  to  expect  steel  rails  to 
be  very  cheap  with  us  so  long  as  we  add  from  $17  to  $28 
to  the  price  of  every  ton  of  English  rails  offered  in  our 
market,  and  at  the  same  time  continue  the  present  high 
duty  on  steel  blooms  which  enter  into  their  construction. 

But  protected  articles  are  not  the  only  ones  thus  made 
permanently  dear.  There  is  a  large  number  of  articles  not 
protected,  in  whose  manufacture  protected  raw  material  is 
used.  All  these  are  made  and  kept  dear  thereby.  Thus 
there  is  not,  nor  can  there  be,  any  protection  on  our  agri- 
cultural machinery  ;  and  yet  there  is  not  a  foot  of  lumber, 
nor  a  bolt,  nor  a  screw,  nor  a  plate  of  iron  or  steel,  nor 
a  coat  of  paint,  used  in  its  construction  that  has  not  cost 
the  manufacturer  a  higher  price  by  reason  of  the  protective 
tax.  Can  we  expect  him  to  sell  a  plough  at  a  low  price? 
To  ask  him  to  do  so  would  be  unreasonable.  To  compel 
him  to  do  so  would  be  robbery  or  confiscation.  Thus  in 
any  system  of  general  protection,  as  ours,  it  is  not  possible 
that  cheapness  shall  prevail.  The  tendency  rather  is  to 
make  prices  higher  and  higher. 

That  protection  does  not  at  any  time  tend  to  cheapen 
the  taxed  commodities  is  further  shown  by  the  fact  that  a 
fall  in  price  has  always  followed,  in  most  cases  immedi- 
ately, a  reduction  or  a  total  repeal  of  a  protective  duty. 
Numerous  instances  will  occur  to  all. 

That  protection  causes  prices  to  be  permanently  high, 


1 14  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

Congress  itself  declared  in  December,  1871,  by  voting  that 
the  duties  on  building  material  designed  for  use  in  rebuild- 
ing Chicago  after  the  fire  be  remitted.  On  another  occa- 
sion Congress  asserted  the  same  thing  in  providing  that  as 
an  encouragement  to  education  and  science,  all  books, 
maps,  apparatus,  and  appliances  designed  to  be  the  prop- 
erty of  institutions  of  learning  shall  enter  the  country  free 
of  duty.  Again,  a  few  weeks  after  Congress  had  conferred 
an  additional  twenty  per  cent  on  the  slate  industry,  these 
manufacturers  announced  a  rise  of  just  twenty  per  cent  in 
the  price  of  their  products.  Was  this  a  mere  coincidence  ? 
If  protection  does  not  permanently  raise  prices  and  prevent 
low  ones,  the  action  in  these  cases  was  totally  devoid  of 
signification. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  a  comparison  of  prices  through  a 
series  of  years  shows  that  there  has  been  a  considerable  de- 
cline in  the  price  of  many  protected  articles  under  the 
Morrill  Tariff.  If  protection  be  not  the  cause  of  this,  what 
have  been  the  causes  ? 

The  true  cause  of  this  decline  is  found  in  several  things, 
some  of  which  are  here  mentioned  :  — 

1.  The  changes  in  currency  values.  — During  the  war  and 
for  years  afterward  our  paper  currency  was  greatly  depre- 
ciated.    Thus  prices  were  high.     They  fell  when  paper  be- 
came more  valuable. 

2.  The  progress  of  invention,  improvement  in  machinery^ 
and  increase  in  skill.  —  In  no  respect  is  this  age  more  dis- 
tinguished than  in  the  nearly  universal  use  of  labor-saving 
devices.     Handicrafts  have  almost  disappeared.     This  use 
of  mechanical  aids,  coupled   with   division  of  labor  and 
growth  of  skill,  has  enormously  increased  production  in 
ratio  to  the  demand.     Dr.  Ur£  estimated  that  the  use  of 
machinery  in  the  construction  of  lace  lessened  its  cost  to 
one  fiftieth  of  the  cost  of  the  hand-made  article.     It  is  use- 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  115 

less  to  multiply  instances;  the  fact  is  well  known  to  all. 
The  improvement  in  machinery  and  the  increase  of  pro- 
duction resulting  from  it,  have  been  far  more  rapid  than 
the  decrease  of  price,  of  which  they  have  been  one  of  the 
chief  causes. 

3.  The  expiration  of  patents.  —  It  is  well  known  to  all 
that  the  expiration  of  the  patents  on  sewing-machines  has 
had  the  effect  of  reducing  the  cost  one  hundred  per  cent. 
This  must  reduce  the  cost  of  all  articles  made  by  them. 
Many  other  examples  might  be  given. 

4.  The  competition  of  foreign  producers.  — Protection  in 
the  United  States  has  an  effect  to  encourage  the  enterprise 
of  foreign  manufacturers.     They  strive  to  reduce  the  cost 
of  their  products  that  they  may  pay  our  duty  and  yet  enter 
our  markets.     This    they  are  very  successful   in   doing, 
chiefly  on  account  of  our  high  range  of  prices.     The  great 
reduction  in  the  price  of  steel  rails,  so  essential  in  this  era 
of  railroads,  was  owing  chiefly  to  the  expiration  of  the  Bes- 
semer patent  in  England,  to  improved  machinery,  and  the 
skill  of  operatives  and  mill-owners  there.     It  is  essential  to 
remember  that  the  reduction  of  price  in  protected  articles 
has  not  been  confined  to  the  United  States,  and  did  not 
begin  here,  and  hence  could  not  have  come  about  through 
the  operation  of  protection.    Prices  have  fallen  here  because 
they  first  fell  in  Europe.     Foreigners  were  able  to  pay  our 
duties  and  yet  beat  down  our  inflated  prices  by  their  com- 
petition.    It  is  not  possible  to  explain  the  two  coincident 
phenomena  of  large  importations  and  falling  prices  in  any 
other  way.     The  articles  named  in  our  metallic  schedule 
have  declined  in  price  in  England  even  more  than  with  us. 
Steel  rails  have  fallen  in  price  here  chiefly  because  the  de- 
cline first  occurred  in  Europe,  and  was  even  greater  than  it 
was  here.     In  the  face  of  falling  prices  in  all  parts  of  the 
world  through  the  operation  of  the  causes  here  enumerated, 


Il6  7S  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

it  would  seem  to  be  either  an  irrational  deduction,  or  else 
a  deliberate  attempt  at  deception,  to  represent  this  result  as 
existing  in  our  own  country  only,  and  as  caused  by  our 
legislation  alone  or  chiefly. 

If  the  home  production  of  a  given  article  be  not  adequate 
to  supply  the  home  demand,  and  the  deficiency  be  made 
up  by  importation,  it  is  impossible  that  the  price  should 
ever  fall  below  the  foreign  price,  plus  the  duty  and  the  cost 
of  transportation,  since  that  would  forbid  the  importation 
itself.  This  condition  is  widely  existing  to-day;  and  as 
we  continue  to  import  manufactured  goods,  it  follows  be- 
yond refutation  that  we  pay  the  full  amount  of  the  duty  in 
addition  to  the  natural  price  on  both  the  foreign  and  the 
domestic  article. 

But  if  the  home  supply  be  too  great  for  the  home  de- 
mand, it  is  then  possible  for  the  competition  of  domestic 
manufacturers  to  reduce  the  price  somewhat  below  the  for- 
eign price,  plus  the  duty  and  transportation.  But  this  state 
of  affairs  will  be  attended  by  a  total  stoppage  of  all  impor- 
tation. Within  the  last  few  years  only  has  this  condition 
of  things  existed.  Thus  in  1887  steel  rails  could  be 
brought  into  New  York  harbor  at  $24  per  ton.  The  duty 
was  $17,  which  would  make  the  lowest  possible  price  of 
English  rails  when  past  the  Custom  House  in  New  York, 
$41  a  ton.  But  during  that  year  American  rails  were  sell- 
ing at  $39.  Our  mills  had  an  absolute  monopoly  of  the 
market,  revenue  was  cut  off,  and  competition  among  pro- 
ducers reduced  the  price  $2  below  the  figure  dictated  by 
the  tariff.  Protectionists  may  fairly  claim  this  as  an  illus- 
tration of  the  workings  of  their  system. 

But  in  connection  therewith  a  few  things  should  be 
borne  in  mind :  i.  This  result  is  exceptional  in  the  case 
of  steel  rails,  which  is  perhaps  the  most  favorable  illustra- 
tion that  protectionists  can  adduce,  and  it  does  not  find 


7.S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  117 

abundant  parallels  in  other  branches  of  manufacture,  since 
the  floods  of  importation  continue  to  pour  in  upon  us.  2. 
The  feeling  of  gratitude  which  might  arise  toward  manufac- 
turers for  giving  the  people  a  reduction  of  $2,  is  quite  off- 
set by  the  facts  that  they  did  not  make  the  concession  till 
they  were  forced  to,  and  that  they  are  still  compelling  us  to 
pay  $15  per  ton  more  than  we  should  be  paying  if  rid  of 
the  system  of  favoritism  miscalled  protection.  3.  What 
is  the  real  meaning  of  this  $2  reduction?  It  is  indispu- 
table that  it  was  wholly  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  rail- 
makers.  It  means,  therefore,  that  they  have  made  an 
adroit  graduation  of  prices  so  as  totally  to  cut  off  importa- 
tion, and  yet  retain  nearly  all  the  bonus.  4.  Instead  of 
home  producers  submitting  to  the  natural  competition 
which  would  reduce  prices,  they  resort  to  combination  and 
"  trusts."  All  must  be  familiar  with  this.  Nearly  every 
branch  of  manufacture,  though  it  should  extend  from 
Maine  to  California,  is  organized,  has  officers  and  stated 
meetings,  and  secures  unity  of  action  in  all  the  establish- 
ments of  its  kind.  Relying  upon  this,  prices  are  raised  or 
lowered,  hammered  and  manipulated,  to  suit  the  caprice 
and  interest  of  the  moment,  and  totally  without  thought  of 
the  public  benefit.  Lockouts  are  enforced,  strikes  precipi- 
tated, and  short  hours  ordered.  This  is  one  chief  reason 
we  have  not  more  widely  realized  even  that  small  reduction 
in  prices  which  protection  is  sometimes  unable  to  prevent. 

But  let  us  for  the  moment  assume  that  after  twenty  years 
of  high  prices  in  protected  commodities  the  domestic  com- 
petition has  beaten  down  prices.  No  protectionist  will 
dare  assert  that  under  protection  prices  can  fall,  or  in  fact 
ever  have  fallen,  so  low  through  competition  as  they  would 
have  done  under  the  operation  of  the  natural  laws  of  trade, 
since  then  the  system  would  become  a  calamity  to  the  very 
men  in  whose  interest  it  was  adopted  and  by  whose  influ- 


Il8  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

ence  it  is  perpetuated.  Therefore  there  must  ever  remain 
in  protection  a  measure  of  artificial  advantage  to  producers 
and  a  measure  of  enforced  disadvantage  to  the  consumers 
of  protected  articles. 

But  let  us  assume  that  after  the  lapse  of  time  under 
protection  our  manufacturers  are  able  to  supply  goods  as 
cheaply  as  can  be  done  by  importation.  Consistency 
would  require  that  the  protective  duties  should  be  light- 
ened from  time  to  time,  and  finally  abolished.  But  after  a 
score  of  years  of  high  tariff,  receivers  of  tariff  bounty  do 
not  propose  such  a  thing.  Let  it  be  but  suggested,  and  we 
are  met  by  the  prompt  objection  that  a  disastrous  cheap- 
ness will  then  prevail.  How  much  longer  are  the  Ameri- 
can people  to  continue  to  pay  an  average  increase  of  over 
forty  per  cent  in  the  price  of  all  kinds  of  protected  com- 
modities, when  protectionists  themselves  admit  that  values 
ought  to  fall?  Ought  we  not  fifteen  years  ago  to  have 
tasted  this  fruit  of  protection  ?  Since  it  has  not  ripened  in 
twenty-five  years,  —  since  it  has  not  even  begun  to  bloom, 
—  is  it  not  fair  to  infer  that  it  does  not  grow  upon  the  pro- 
tective tree  ?  Is  it  not  time  to  cut  down  the  barren  trunk  ? 
Is  it  not  true  that  our  people  have  allowed  themselves  to 
be  deluded  by  the  promise  of  low  prices  during  all  the 
years  we  have  been  trying  the  costly  experiment  of  helping 
a  few  to  accumulate  wealth  from  the  pockets  of  the  many  ? 

Under  the  Morrill  Tariff  our  prices  on  protected  articles 
have  been  on  a  higher  level  than  anywhere  else  in  Chris- 
tendom. This  assertion  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  we  con- 
tinue to  import  goods  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  If  their 
prices  were  really  as  high  as  ours,  it  would  be  impossible 
that  they  should  pay  our  duty  and  enter  our  ports.  Take 
up  an  English  newspaper  and  place  it  beside  an  American 
paper  of  the  same  date.  Turn  to  the  market  quotations, 
and  make  a  comparison.  We  pay  $30  for  a  carpet  that 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  119 

should  sell  here  for  $18  ;  $9  for  a  shawl  that  is  worth  $6  ; 
$iS  for  a  lady's  dress  that  should  sell  for  $12.  Turn  now 
to  the  official  tariff  schedules,  —  a  little  pamphlet  from  the 
Government  Printing-Office.  These  things,  and  scores  of 
others,  are  as  "  plain  as  an  open  book."  On  every  woollen 
suit  half  the  cost  is  tax,  and  the  other  half  is  clothes.  If  a 
boy's  wool  hat  costs  one  dollar,  sixty  cents  is  tax,  and  forty 
is  hat.  If  a  farmer  buys  a  barrel  of  salt,  thirty-six  per  cent 
goes  to  a  wealthy  company  at  Syracuse  or  Saginaw,  and  the 
rest  pays  for  the  goods.  If  a  lady  buys  a  yard  of  plain 
Brussels  carpet  for  one  dollar,  fifty-five  cents  is  tribute,  and 
forty-five  is  carpet.  Go  on  down  the  official  list  of  articles 
in  daily  use  among  the  people,  and  note  the  greedy  but 
disguised  hand  of  the  tariff  pickpocket. 

The  same  course  of  inquiry  will  show  that  we  are  receiv- 
ing too  little  for  what  we  sell,  —  the  losses  on  our  sales 
being  second  only  to  our  losses  on  our  purchases.  Not 
only  does  our  protection  make  domestic  prices  high,  but, 
as  was  shown,  it  makes  foreign  ones  low.  The  result  is 
that  we  are  not  receiving  an  equitable  return  for  our  cereals, 
our  provisions,  and  all  things  which  we  export ;  while  we 
are  not  able  to  export  our  protected  articles  at  all,  by  rea- 
son of  their  increased  cost,  though  there  are  millions  of 
people  in  foreign  countries  who  would  gladly  take  our 
surplus  if  they  could  buy  of  us  as  cheaply  as  elsewhere. 

If  protection  were  removed,  the  first  effect  in  the  United 
States  would  be  a  fall  in  the  price  of  the  lately  protected 
articles.  There  would  be  a  small  rise  in  price  in  Europe. 
This  movement  would  continue  till  a  balance  of  prices  was 
reached,  which  would  be  somewhere  near  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction in  the  cheaper  of  the  two  countries,  plus  the  cost 
of  transportation  to  the  other  one.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, cheaper  goods  would  stimulate  consumption,  which 
would  open  the  way  for  larger  production.  What  a  race 


I2O  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

there  would  be  in  friendly  commercial  rivalry  to  supply  the 
best  products,  by  most  approved  modes  of  manufacture,  to 
the  millions  of  all  the  outlying  nations  !  No  true  American 
can  doubt  the  early  and  permanent  superiority  of  our  own 
country  in  such  a  race  as  that.  Shall  we  not  strike  off  all 
cumbrous  restrictions,  except  only  such  light  weights  as 
may  appear  necessary  for  purposes  of  revenue,  in  order 
that  the  comforts  of  our  people  may  be  enlarged,  and  that 
the  Republic  may  enter  upon  a  career  of  unhampered  and 
world-wide  trade  ? 


CHAPTER  XI. 

RELATION   OF  PROTECTION  TO   WAGES. 


ROTECTION  is  as  double-faced  as  Janus.  It 
is  as  double-tongued  as  a  Tyrian.  It  is  a  sys- 
tem which  delights  to  look  two  ways  at  once. 
One  instant,  as  we  have  just  seen,  it  argues  that 
restriction  is  necessary  in  order  to  raise  prices ;  the  next, 
it  claims  restriction  as  a  public  benefit,  since  it  reduces 
prices.  It  is  not  a  little  strange  that  the  hop,  skip,  and 
jump  in  such  reasoning  seems  to  have  escaped  the  atten- 
tion of  protectionists. 

In  striking  similarity  to  this  are  two  forms  of  argument 
adduced  by  protectionists  in  regard  to  wages.  They  may 
be  stated  as  follows:  i.  Protection  has  the  effect  to  raise 
the  wages  of  laborers,  and  therefore  it  should  have  the 
support  of  all  men  who  depend  upon  their  labor  for  their 
livelihood.  2.  Since  wages  are  higher  in  America  than  in 
Europe,  protection  is  necessary  in  order  to  enable  the 
home-producers  to  compete  with  the  foreign  ones  in  our 
markets. 

To  put  the  matter  concisely,  protection  says  in  sub- 
stance :  High  wages  are  a  great  benefit,  which  must  be 
secured  through  protection ;  but  high  wages  are  a  great 
disadvantage,  which  must  be  offset  by  protection.  Or,  we 


122  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT  1 

should  have  protection  because  it  secures  high  wages ;  and 
we  should  have  protection  because  wages  are  high.  Here 
we  have  an  example  of  circular  reasoning  which  leads  no- 
whither.  The  two  propositions  are  mutually  destructive, 
though  their  incongruity  does  not  appear  till  they  are 
placed  side  by  side.  The  wonder  is  that  sensible  men 
can  be  found  that  will  give  adherence  to  both  ideas  at  the 
same  time.  They  would  appear  to  be  such  feats  in  logic 
as  could  be  accomplished  only  by  the  mental  gymnast,  the 
sophist,  or  the  demagogue. 

He  would  be  deemed  a  very  unskilful  debater  who 
should  adduce  both  of  these  propositions  at  the  same  time 
and  before  the  same  audience.  Protectionists,  in  their 
efforts  to  support  their  system,  are  like  Oakes  Ames  with 
his  Credit  Mobilier  stock ;  they  put  their  arguments  "  where 
they  will  do  the  most  good."  In  addressing  labor- 
ers, it  has  become  quite  the  custom  to  appeal  to  their 
selfishness  by  asserting  that  protection  blesses  them  in 
raising  the  scale  of  their  daily  wages ;  but  in  addressing 
consumers  and  in  lobbying  Congressmen,  it  is  the  old-time 
plea  that  wages  are  so  high  that  our  industries  can  not 
flourish  in  competition  with  Europe  unless  foreign  goods 
are  shut  out  and  prices  raised.  To  what  poverty  of  argu- 
ment must  that  system  be  reduced  which  is  under  the 
necessity  of  asserting  a  thing  before  men  as  laborers  which 
it  must  deny  before  other  men  as  consumers  !  This  is 
mere  jugglery  in  logic.  It  is  not  strange  that  the  men  who 
vote  are  seeing  the  emptiness  of  such  evasive  and  double- 
tongued  sophistries.  In  spite  of  the  contradiction  in  these 
two  ideas,  they  are  both  asserted  with  all  seriousness,  and 
they  constitute  no  small  part  of  the  argumentative  defence 
of  protection.  That  they  are  both  mere  assertions,  not 
warranted  by  either  facts  or  reason,  will  appear  from 
examination. 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  123 

But  first,  are  wages  here  really  higher  than  beyond  the 
Atlantic?  It  is  not  a  little  amusing  to  note  with  what 
painstaking  care  and  with  what  elaborate  citation  of  statis- 
tics protectionist  writers  are  accustomed  to  prove  a  thing 
which  very  few  will  deny,  —  that  wages  in  the  United  States 
are,  on  an  average,  higher  than  in  Europe.  Not  long  after 
the  Tariff  Commission  had  completed  its  labors,  one  of 
our  metropolitan  journals  sent  a  member  of  the  Commission 
to  England  as  a  special  correspondent,  to  support  by  his 
inquiries  this  uncontroverted  fact.  No  one  can  make  any 
objection  to  such  a  course,  except  to  say  that  it  is  un- 
necessary. But  having  laboriously  compassed  sea  and 
land  to  prove  a  thing  which  has  not  been  disputed,  protec- 
tionists suddenly  drop  the  plodding  course  of  argument,  and 
leap  on  the  wings  of  fancy  to  the  conclusion  that  since  wages 
are  high,  protection  must  be  employed  to  offset  them. 

With  an  outlay  of  effort  strongly  suggestive  of  Horace's 
figure  about  "  the  everlasting  mountains  being  in  labor  and 
a  tiny  mouse  being  born,"  protectionists  may  claim  to 
have  established  the  fact  of  higher  wages.  But  when  fac- 
ing wage-earners,  mark  the  ease  and  serenity  with  which 
they  are  wont  to  claim  this  as  one  of  the  results  of  their 
system.  Stripped  of  all  verbiage,  the  argument  stands  in  its 
nakedness  thus :  We  have  protection ;  we  also  have  high 
wages :  therefore  protection  is  the  cause .  of  high  wages. 
Again,  England  has  low  wages ;  also  free  trade  :  there- 
fore free  trade  is  the  cause  of  low  wages.  Thus  sophistry 
may  be  made  to  assume  a  syllogistic  dress,  as  though  it 
were  argument.  It  would  be  equally  as  logical,  and  quite 
as  pertinent,  to  argue  thus :  We  have  a  republic  here ; 
we  also  have  high  wages :  therefore  a  republican  form  of 
government  is  the  cause  of  high  wages.  England  is  a 
monarchy ;  England  has  low  wages  :  therefore  a  monarchy 
causes  low  wages. 


124  IS  PROTECTION'  A  BENEFIT? 

But  what  are  the  facts  ?  Wages  have  always  been  high 
in  America,  from  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  the  present  hour. 
A  century  ago,  Adam  Smith  declared  that  wages  were  twice 
as  high  in  America  as  in  England.  Alexander  Hamilton  in 
his  famous  Report  on  Manufactures,  issued  a  century  ago, 
noted  the  fact  that  wages  here  were  higher  than  in  Europe. 
The  same  state  of  affairs  has  existed  ever  since,  under  all 
our  tariffs  and  through  all  our  changes  of  political  adminis- 
tration. It  is  safe,  therefore,  to  assert  that  the  rate  of 
wages  is  regulated  by  natural  forces  which  lie  far  deeper 
and  have  more  potency  than  the  fickle  policies  of  statesmen 
at  Washington.  Protection  can  not  be  the  cause. 

Instead  of  stating  that  high  wages  have  marked  all  our 
history,  the  advocates  of  protection  sometimes  have  ap- 
peared to  wish  it  to  be  inferred  that  such  was  the  case  only 
in  our  protective  eras.  They  have  wished  the  fact  to  be 
known  that  wages  here  are  higher  now  than  in  the  first 
part  of  the  century ;  but  they  appear  to  have  forgotten 
the  other  half  of  the  fact,  that  even  then  our  wages  were 
not  only  higher  than  those  of  Europe,  but  higher  in  a 
greater  ratio  than  they  are  at  present. 

What  is  the  real  cause  of  high  wages  ?  Wages  are  the 
share  of  production  which  falls  to  labor  as  its  compensation, 
and  in  every  business  they  must  be  paid  out  of  the  product. 
No  man  can  continue  to  pay  high  wages  when  his  produc- 
tion is  small.  If  any  one  attempt  it,  it  will  be  merely  a 
question  of  time  when  the  sheriff  will  come  to  bury  his 
business  beyond  the  sight  of  his  creditors.  But  if  high 
wages  continue  to  be  paid  in  any  country  or  in  any  busi- 
ness, it  is  proof  sufficient  that  production  and  profits  are 
large.  The  true  barometer  of  wages  is  the  degree  in 
which  labor  is  productive.  High  wages  are  given  to 
America  by  the  endowment  of  Nature,  not  by  the  enact- 
ment of  Congress. 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  \2$ 

But  to  the  arguments.  Since  it  is  impossible  to  deny 
that  protection  raises  prices,  and  is  so  intended  to  do,  its 
effects  must  be  disadvantageous  to  all  consumers,  unless 
there  are  benefits  which  offset  it.  Such  a  countervailing 
advantage  is  said  to  exist  in  the  larger  wages  paid  to  labor- 
ers in  the  protected  industries.  This  plea  is  the  capital 
defence  of  protection  for  the  ears  of  all  our  wage-earning 
people. 

Of  all  the  baseless  claims  set  forth  by  protectionists, 
none  are  more  fallacious  and  absurd  than  this.  The  exact 
opposite  is  the  truth.  Protection  has  lowered  wages  wher- 
ever it  has  been  tried.  It  must  necessarily  always  do  so. 
No  one  has  ever  claimed  that  it  raised  wages  in  any 
country  but  America.  In  Europe,  especially  in  those 
parts  where  workmen  have  no  votes,  it  has  sometimes  been 
adopted  with  the  openly  expressed  object  of  reducing 
wages. 

Our  present  tariff  averages  above  forty  per  cent  on  the 
entire  amount  of  dutiable  goods ;  and  as  a  result,  the  price 
of  all  articles  named  in  the  schedules,  both  of  foreign  and 
domestic  manufacture,  is  raised,  in  most  cases  by  the  en- 
tire amount  of  the  tax,  since  importation  continues.  Since 
the  list  includes  nearly  every  article  of  comfort  or  neces- 
sity in  the  family,  the  laborer  must  pay  a  considerable  part 
of  his  wages  to  meet  this  tax.  In  most  cases  this  increased 
cost  of  commodities  is  far  greater  than  the  assumed  in- 
crease of  wages.  Hence  the  laborer  is  injured,  even  on 
the  supposition  that  the  claim  of  protectionists  is  true. 
When  analyzed,  wages  are  not  the  dollars  received,  but  the 
goods  which  they  will  buy.  Profit  is  not  the  money  han- 
dled, but  the  sum  that  is  saved.  Three  dollars  a  day  when 
bread  is  ten  cents  a  loaf,  and  other  things  in  proportion,  is 
not  so  much  as  two  dollars  when  it  is  five  cents  a  loaf. 

In  1878  a  volume  was  issued  by  the  State  Department 


126  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

on  "The  State  of  Labor  in  Europe."  In  this  document  it 
is  shown  that,  taking  an  average  of  all  occupations,  the 
American  laborer  receives  three  dollars,  while  the  English 
receives  two  dollars ;  but  that  rent,  clothing,  and  all  arti- 
cles of  food,  except  meat  and  bread,  are  so  much  cheaper 
in  England  as  to  make  up  at  least  half  this  difference. 
Hence  wages,  though  nominally  fifty  per  cent  higher,  are 
really  only  twenty-five  per  cent  higher.  This  is  the  official 
showing  at  a  time  when  the  government  machinery  was 
all  in  the  hands  of  protectionists.  Thus  it  appears  that 
though,  according  to  Adam  Smith,  wages  were  a  hundred 
per  cent  higher  here  than  in  England  when  we  had  free 
trade  and  Britain  protection,  the  ratio  has  been  steadily  de- 
creasing under  the  joint  operation  of  protection  here  and 
free  trade  there,  till,  by  the  showing  of  protectionists  them- 
selves, the  excess  is  now  only  twenty-five  per  cent  on  an 
average.  We  are  led  to  conclude  that  protection  has  low- 
ered wages  here.  It  is  certain  that  the  system  has  not 
prevented  at  least  a  relative  decline. 

In  another  way  protection  reduces  wages.  The  raw 
material  entering  the  construction  of  all  manufactured 
goods  averages  about  sixty  percent  of  their  final  cost. 
But  the  tariff  tax  on  this  material  averages  at  least  thirty 
per  cent,  which  is  equivalent  to  eighteen  per  cent  on  the 
finished  product.  Wages  also,  according  to  the  census  of 
1880,  constitute  about  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  entire 
product.  Hence  the  tariff  has  had  the  effect  to  increase 
to  the  manufacturer  the  cost  of  his  goods  by  the  full 
amount  of  the  wages  which  he  pays.  The  conclusion  is 
that  unless  his  protection  is  greater  than  the  entire  amount 
of  wages  paid  by  him,  he  is  less  able  to  pay  high  wages 
than  he  would  have  been  even  under  absolute  free  trade. 
England  admits  raw  material  free  ;  France  does  not.  Is  it 
not  a  clear  inference  that  the  latter  must  pay  lower  wages 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 


127 


than  England  ?  She  must,  and  she  does.  Protection  is  the 
policy  adopted  there ;  but  no  Frenchman  claims  that  it 
raises  wages.  It  is  chosen  rather  because  it  lowers  wages. 

It  would  seem  to  be  evident  that  wages  can  not  be  per- 
manently high  in  a  losing  business.  But  protection  is 
based  upon  the  fundamental  idea  that  we  can  not  conduct 
certain  branches  of  manufacture  in  this  country  except  at  a 
loss ;  and  hence  it  is  necessary  in  some  way  to  compel  our 
people  to  make  articles  which  we  can  not  naturally  make  as 
cheaply  as  other  nations.  For  if  we  could,  there  would  be 
left  no  excuse  for  a  protective  tariff.  It  is  deliberately 
proposed,  then,  to  induce  men  to  leave  an  occupation  in 
which  a  given  amount  of  labor  would  earn  a  dollar,  to 
engage  in  one  in  which  it  would  earn  but  seventy-five  cents. 
Can  it  be  believed  that  manufacturers  can  pay  higher  wages 
on  a  diminished  production?  They  can  not,  and  they 
never  have.  Go,  tell  the  story  to  the  marines  ! 

But  what  would  follow  if  it  could  be  proved  that  higher 
wages  are  paid  in  the  protected  industries  than  in  the  non- 
protected? According  to  the  census  of  1880,  the  entire 
number  of  laborers  employed  in  the  five  great  industries  — 
iron,  steel,  woollen,  cotton,  and  sugar  —  was  493,864, 
which  is  less  than  one  per  cent  of  our  population.  If 
each  one  of  these  laborers  has  an  average  of  three  per- 
sons dependent  upon  his  toil,  it  follows  that  less  than  four 
per  cent  of  our  people  are  benefited  by  the  increased  rate 
of  wages.  But  the  higher  wages  thus  paid  was  so  much 
added  to  the  cost  of  the  goods  manufactured,  so  that 
ninety-six  per  cent  of  our  people  were  taxed  for  the  benefit 
of  four  per  cent.  It  can  not  be  otherwise.  Even  if  protec- 
tionists could  make  good  their  claim  as  to  wages  in  pro- 
tected industries,  it  can  not  fail  to  reduce  the  wages  —  that 
is,  purchasing  power  —  of  labor  in  all  others,  and  thus 
prove  a  tax  upon  f  f  of  the  people  for  the  benefit  of  ^ 


128  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

From  whatever  point  of  view  we  look  upon  the  argument 
that  protection  raises  wages,  it  is  all  hollowness  and 
fallacy. 

On  the  contrary,  the  effect  of  free  trade  is  to  raise  wages, 
both  in  dollars  and  in  purchasing  power.  Why  is  this  the 
case?  For  the  following  reasons:  i.  Because  low  tariff 
reduces  the  price  of  manufactured  articles  which  the  wage- 
earner  purchases  to  satisfy  his  needs.  2.  Because  under 
free  trade  all  onr  commodities,  in  the  production  of  which 
we  have  superior  advantages,  will  go  out  to  find  the  best 
market  in  the  world.  If  they  find  the  dearest  market  — 
which  is  the  very  object  of  their  export  —  the  wages  paid  in 
their  production  must  be  a  maximum.  3.  Because  the  good 
things  offered  us  by  international  exchange  will,  under  free 
commerce,  stimulate  capital  and  give  larger  employment  to 
labor  to  create  the  goods  with  which  to  buy  them,  since  the 
only  possible  way  to  obtain  the  products  of  foreign  toil  is 
to  offer  in  exchange  the  products  of  domestic  toil.  4. 
Because  in  creating  these  goods  to  exchange  for  foreign 
ones  we  shall  labor  in  those  pursuits  in  which  we  have  the 
greatest  natural  superiority,  and  not  in  those  in  which  effort 
is  relatively  unprofitable.  We  shall  labor  in  harmony  with 
Nature,  and  not  "  kick  against  the  pricks  "  of  inexorable 
natural  law.  Since  production  must  then  be  the  greatest 
possible,  labor  will  then  receive  its  maximum  reward.  5. 
Because  it  is  better  to  have  the  whole  world  for  a  market 
than  any  one  country,  however  large  or  wealthy.  6.  Be- 
cause it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  whenever  a  nation  has 
removed  its  restrictions  upon  its  foreign  trade,  a  rise  in 
wages  has  always  accompanied  or  soon  followed  this  adop- 
tion of  a  more  liberal  commercial  policy. 

But  is  the  assertion  that  free  trade  raises  wages,  and  pro- 
tection lowers  them,  supported  by  the  facts  ?  Let  us  look 
at  the  record. 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  129 

It  is  conceded  by  every  one  that  wages  in  England  un- 
der free  trade  are  largely  in  excess  of  what  they  were  pre- 
vious to  1846,  under  protection.  John  Bright,  who  for 
over  forty  years  has  been  a  statesman  of  distinguished 
ability  in  England,  says  that  the  increase  has  averaged  forty 
per  cent.  The  Consular  Reports  show  that  the  laboring 
people  of  Great  Britain  are  thirty  per  cent  better  fed,  forty 
per  cent  better  clothed,  fifty  per  cent  better  housed,  and 
one  hundred  per  cent  better  educated,  than  when  England 
had  a  protective  tariff.  No  one  in  England  or  elsewhere 
has  ever  asserted  that  free  trade  reduced  wages  in  Great 
Britain.  When  the  English  threw  aside  protection,  which 
they  never  really  needed,  they  were  enabled  to  enter  the 
markets  of  all  the  world  as  sellers ;  and  this  gave  such  an 
impetus  to  their  manufactures  that  wages  steadily  advanced 
from  year  to  year.  Since  England  adopted  free  trade, 
wages  have  advanced  more  rapidly  than  they  ever  did  in 
this  country.  England  is  to-day  paying,  and  for  forty  years 
has  been  paying,  the  highest  wages  in  the  eastern 
hemisphere. 

In  Ireland,  manufacturing  increased  twice  as  fast  under 
free  trade  as  under  protection,  and  wages  of  employe's  have 
risen  one  hundred  per  cent.  The  agricultural  wages  have 
increased  still  more  rapidly, —  five  hundred  per  cent.  This 
deduction  is  based  upon  the  statement  of  Daniel  O'Connell, 
the  Irish  patriot,  in  1844,  that  farm- wages  averaged  from 
eight  to  twelve  cents  a  day,  and  upon  the  later  statement 
of  the  American  consul  at  Cork,  presumably  a  protectionist, 
in  1878,  that  the  agricultural  wages  in  Ireland  were  about 
fifty-seven  cents  a  day. 

Russia  has  the  highest  protective  tariff  in  Europe,  and 
wages  are  lower  than  anywhere  else  on  the  Continent. 
Austria  comes  next,  both  as  to  high  tariff  and  low  wages. 
Germany  has  a  tariff  somewhat  lower  than  Austria,  and 

9 


130  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

pays  wages  somewhat  higher.  France  in  turn  has  a  tariff 
lower  than  that  of  Germany,  and  pays  wages  higher  than 
the  Fatherland.  In  the  report  on  the  "  State  of  Labor  in 
Europe  "  it  is  shown  that  the  wages  of  skilled  labor  is  $3.60 
per  week  under  high  protection  in  Germany,  but  $7.60  per 
week  under  free  trade  in  England.  Protectionists  are  fond 
of  emphasizing  the  half-truth  that  wages  are  higher  here 
than  in  England ;  but  they  appear  to  avoid  the  other  half 
of  the  truth,  that  wages  in  free  trade  England  are  higher 
than  in  protective  Germany. 

Under  the  rule  of  Bismarck  the  tariff  rates  have  been 
materially  advanced  in  Germany  within  a  few  years.  The 
following  statement  is  from  the  Report  of  the  German 
Chamber  of  Commerce  after  one  year's  experience  of  the 
new  tariff.  "  The  high  duties  have  greatly  enhanced  the 
cost  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  while  instead  of  wages  rising, 
as  was  predicted,  they  have  either  remained  stationary  or 
declined,  and  the  condition  of  the  German  workman  has 
materially  deteriorated." 

But  what  has  been  the  history  of  wages  in  our  own 
country  ?  The  first  attempt  to  collect  official  statistics  of 
wages  here  was  made  by  Congress  in  1841,  and  Salton- 
stall's  Report  of  March,  1842,  is  the  result.  This  report 
was  ordered  for  the  purpose  of  getting  facts  with  which  to 
prop  up  the  tottering  fabric  of  protection.  But  with  every 
inducement  to  make  a  favorable  showing  for  high  wages, 
manufacturers  all  over  the  country  reported  that  mechanics' 
wages  had  not  increased,  and  that  farm  wages  had  declined. 
Thus  during  many  years  of  high  protection  there  had  been 
no  advance  in  the  rewards  of  labor. 

In  1845  tne  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Robert  J.  Walker, 
a  friend  of  revenue  tariff,  caused  inquiries  to  be  made  as  to 
the  effect  of  the  tariff  of  1842  on  wages.  Remembering 
the  small  favor  which  the  Saltonstall  Report  gave  to  their 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  131 

theories,  the  protectionists  in  Congress  opposed  this  inves- 
tigation, regarding  it  as  an  impertinent  inquiry  into  private 
affairs.  Of  all  the  responses  sent  in,  none  reported  an 
advance  in  wages,  and  many  declared  that  reductions  had 
been  forced  upon  them. 

In  1846  duties  were  reduced  to  a  revenue  basis  under 
the  Walker  Tariff.  Wages  soon  began  to  rise,  and  so  con- 
tinued from  year  to  year.  In  1850  the  census  contained 
for  the  first  time  the  official  statistics  on  wages.  In  that 
year  the  average  of  wages  paid  in  manufactures  was  $248, 
a  marked  increase  over  the  figures  deducible  from  Salton- 
stall's  Report.  During  the  next  decade  the  Walker  Tariff 
remained  in  force  ;  and  when  the  seventh  census  was  taken, 
in  1860,  it  showed  that  the  average  of  wages  paid  was  $290, 
an  increase  of  seventeen  per  cent.  Between  1846  and 
1860  there  was  a  greater  rise  in  the  wages  paid  in  the  iron, 
cotton,  and  woollen  industries  than  during  any  other 
period  before  or  since. 

After  nine  years  of  protection  under  the  Morrill  Tariff, 
the  census  reported  in  1870  that  the  number  of  hands  em- 
ployed in  the  manufacturing  and  mechanical  industries  of 
the  entire  country  was  2,009,737,  and  the  amount  paid  in 
wages  therein  was  $762,296,747,  an  average  of  $379  to 
each  employe*.  But  these  values  were  in  currency,  gold 
then  being  at  a  premium.  On  making  the  reduction  of 
25.3  per  cent  to  place  values  on  a  gold  basis,  as  in  all  the 
other  censuses  (the  rate  of  reduction  authorized  by  the 
Census  Report  itself),  it  is  found  that  the  wages  of  1870 
were  $303,  —  a  nominal  increase  of  only  $13  a  year  after 
ten  years  of  protection.  This  would  be  a  small  victory  for 
a  high  tariff,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  real  wages  were  much 
smaller  by  reason  of  high  price  of  all  kinds  of  commodities 
under  the  stimulus  of  war  taxation. 

Another  decade  passed,  and  the  census  of  1880  reported 


132  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

that  the  number  of  hands  employed  in  the  manufacturing  and 
mechanical  industries  of  the  whole  country  was  2,732,595, 
and  the  amount  of  wages  paid  therein  was  $947,953,795,  an 
average  of  $346  each.  This  also  has  been  paraded  as  a 
victory  for  protection.  But  it  should  be  remembered,  not 
only  that  the  real  wages  were  much  less  than  this  nominal 
figure,  but  that  the  census  happened  to  fall  upon  a  year  of 
very  unusual  activity  in  manufactures,  when  we  had  just 
recovered  from  the  Jay  Cooke  Panic,  and  when  the  enor- 
mous call  for  products  compelled  the  manufacturers  to  pay 
higher  wages  till  the  demand  was  supplied.  That  such  was 
the  case  is  shown  by  two  facts  well  known  to  all :  first,  that 
the  wages  of  that  year  were  much  higher  than  were  paid 
during  the  six  years  preceding ;  second,  that  since  the  cen- 
sus year  there  has  been  a  steady  reduction  in  wages  in  all 
our  protected  industries.  This  reduction  has  averaged 
twenty  per  cent,  as  estimated  by  those  writing  in  the  inter- 
ests of  protection.  Hence,  the  average  wages  of  operatives 
in  our  protected  industries  at  the  present  time  is  about 
$277,  which  is  less  nominally,  and  far  less  really,  than  the 
wages  of  1860  under  partial  free  trade. 

The  census  returns  aid  the  inquiry  in  another  respect. 
They  show  that  a  higher  per  cent  of  the  value  of  manu- 
factured articles  was  paid  .in  wages  under  the  Walker  Tariff 
than  under  the  Morrill.  To  specify  :  In  1 850,  after  low  reve- 
nue tariff  had  been  four  years  in  operation  and  had  had  time 
to  bear  some  of  its  fruits,  20.1  per  cent  of  the  value  of  all 
manufactured  products  was  paid  as  wages  to  the  operatives. 
In  1860,  when  after  fourteen  years  the  Walker  Tariff  could 
fairly  be  called  upon  to  show  results,  the  ratio  of  wages  to 
products  was  23.2  per  cent.  In  1870,  after  nine  years  of 
protection,  the  ratio  had  fallen  to  18.5  per  cent.  In  1880, 
after  nineteen  years  of  protection,  the  figures,  not  merely 
deducible  from  the  census  reports,  but  actually  given  in  the 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  133 

official  volume,  were  1 7.6  per  cent.  These  "  cold  and  solid 
facts  "  tell  their  story  with  an  emphasis  which  does  not  call 
for  comment. 

Besides  this,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  claim  of  protec- 
tionists as  to  wages,  we  should  expect  to  find  the  highest 
wages  in  the  most  highly  protected  industries.  But  the 
exact  opposite  is  the  fact.  Any  one  who  will  refer  to  the 
Census  Reports  of  1880  may  glean  the  following  facts : 
Average  annual  wages  in  manufactures,  both  protected  and 
non-protected,  $346.  Average  wages  in  the  woollen  indus- 
try, $298,  though  it  is  protected  by  a  duty  averaging  sixty- 
seven  per  cent.  Average  wages  of  cotton  employes,  $243, 
though  their  business  is  protected  by  a  duty  of  forty-five  to 
sixty-five  per  cent.  Average  wages  of  silk  employes,  $291, 
though  their  trade  is  protected  by  a  duty  averaging  forty- 
nine  per  cent.  Thus  the  official  figures  show  that  the 
highest  protection  goes  with  the  lowest  wages,  and  that  the 
highest  wages  are  paid  in  those  industries  that  have  a 
merely  nominal  protection  or  none  at  all.  Wages  of  skilled 
labor  are  lower  in  the  factories  of  New  England  than  any- 
where else  in  the  United  States.  Further,  from  these  returns 
it  appears  that  the  average  wages  of  operatives  in  the  most 
highly  protected  industries  known  to  our  tariff  is  less  than 
a  dollar  a  day.  Can  the  laborer  who  has  a  family^to  support 
and  children  to  educate  take  any  delight  in  figures  like 
these  ?  Do  they  furnish  any  solid  comfort  to  the  advocates 
of  high  protection  ? 

The  fact  that  protection  causes  low  wages  and  free  trade 
high  wages  received  a  striking  illustration  on  May  i,  1883. 
On  that  day  the  tax  on  raw  tobacco  was  reduced  one  half. 
In  response  to  this  reduction  in  the  cost  of  their  materials, 
the  tobacco  manufacturers  of  the  country  agreed  to  give 
one  third  of  the  reduction  as  an  increase  in  the  wages  of 
their  employes,  thus  confessing  that  protection  had  been 


134  Ss  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

lowering  wages  in  that  industry.  This  increase  was  a  very 
proper  thing  to  do,  but  not  on  the  theory  that  protection 
raises  wages.  Precisely  in  the  same  way  would  the  reduc- 
tion of  all  duties  tend  to  raise  wages  therein,  and  the  reten- 
tion of  duties  tend  to  keep  wages  down.  Let  Congress  not 
delay  to  cut  down  duties  along  the  entire  length  of  the 
tariff  schedules,  if  it  be  desirable  that  wages  should  rise. 

But  what  can  be  said  of  the  other  argument  so  continu- 
ally sounded  in  our  hearing,  —  that  protection  is  necessary 
because  wages  are  high?  The  plea  is,  that  since  wages  are 
lower  in  Europe,  goods  can  be  made  there  cheaper  than 
here ;  and  that  therefore  we  should  be  "  inundated  "  with 
foreign  products  to  the  ruin  of  our  industries,  unless  we 
erect  a  high  tariff-wall  to  keep  them  out.  The  late  Tariff 
Commission  (see  Report,  page  no)  says:  "The  higher 
price  of  American  labor  was  urged  as  a  reason  in  almost 
every  case  where  witnesses  have  asked  for  increased  rates 
of  duty."  This  is  another  chief  argumentative  prop  of  pro- 
tection. 

i.  This  claim  is  a  sophism.  Though,  as  all  know,  nom- 
inal wages  are  somewhat  higher  here  than  in  England,  yet 
this  difference  is  much  more  than  balanced  to  the  manu- 
facturer by  the  greater  productiveness  of  labor  here.  Though 
nominal  wages  are  higher,  real  wages  are  lower  in  the 
United  States  than  in  England.  Let  us  see  :  — 

The  man  who,  by  the  employment  of  intelligent  work- 
men and  the  best  machinery,  can  make  one  thousand  yards 
of  cloth  in  a  day,  can  afford  to  pay  wages  more  than  twice 
as  high  as  one  who  can  make  but  five  hundred  yards  in  the 
same  time.  Sir  Thomas  Brassey,  of  England,  one  of  the 
largest  employers  of  labor  in  the  world,  found  it  cheaper  to 
employ  English  navvies  at  ten  times  the  wages  he  had  paid 
to  Italian  laborers,  because  the  former  more  than  made  up 
the  difference  by  larger  production.  English  laborers  were 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  135 

taken  to  France  and  paid  $1.20  a  day  to  work  upon  rail- 
roads, while  Frenchmen  were  employed  at  sixty-two  cents 
a  day;  and  yet,  upon  actual  measurement  of  the  work 
done,  it  was  found  that  that  done  by  the  English  cost  the 
least.  Slave  labor  was  the  dearest  labor  the  South  ever 
employed.  An  English  employer  found  it  was  more  profit- 
able to  hire  laborers  from  Essex  at  2s.  6d.,  than  those  from 
Tipperary  at  one  sixth  that  amount.  The  cost  of  labor  is 
frequently  the  lowest  where  the  price  is  the  highest. 

The  same  relation  exists  between  the  labor  of  the  United 
States  and  that  of  Europe.  We  have  the  authority  of  the 
Department  of  State,  in  1878,  for  the  statement  that  "the 
average  American  workman  performs  from  one  and  a  half 
to  twice  as  much  work  in  a  day  as  the  average  European 
workman."  This  shows  the  entire  consistency  of  two  things 
that  would  appear  to  be  contradictory ;  first,  that  our  wages 
are  nominally  higher  than  those  of  England,  and  second, 
that  they  are  really  lower. 

The  census  of  1880  shows  that  the  2,732,595  workmen 
employed  in  the  manufacturing  and  mechanical  industries 
of  the  United  States  produced  goods  to  the  value  of 
$5,369,579,191,  an  average  of  $1,965  each;  while  the 
average  annual  production  of  English  workmen,  according 
to  the  statisticians  of  that  country,  was  $780  per  capita. 
Again,  the  American  cotton-weaver  makes  1,200  yards  a 
week;  the  English,  710  yards.  Thus  the  American  work- 
man, through  better  machinery,  longer  hours,  greater  intelli- 
gence, and  larger  efficiency  of  labor,  produces  from  one  and 
a  half  to  two  and  a  half  times  the  value  turned  out  by  the 
English  operative.  Is  it  not  a  just  and  a  natural  thing 
that  he  should  receive  wages  twice  as  great  ?  Yet  protec- 
tionists clamor  for  aid  from  government,  because  his  wages 
are  twenty-five  per  cent  greater  !  The  fact  is,  that  Ameri- 
can labor  is  about  fifty  per  cent  the  cheaper  of  the  two. 


136  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

2.  But  this  does  not  exhaust  the  record.     It  is  true  that 
American  wages  are  the  lower  on  the  ground  of  productive 
capacity.     It  is  true  that  they  are  the  lower  in  their  pur- 
chasing power,  dollar  to  dollar.     It  is  not  a  little  striking 
that  in  some  important  industries  they  are   lower  as   to 
nominal  amount  also. 

We  have  the  statement  of  the  Department  of  State  under 
President  Arthur,  drawn  from  official  returns,  that  the  aver- 
age wages  of  all  the  employes  in%the  English  cotton-mills 
is  $251  annually,  for  fifty-six  hours  of  labor  per  week.  But 
whoever  will  examine  our  census  of  1880  may  learn  that  the 
average  wages  of  the  same  class  of  operatives  in  the  Ameri- 
can cotton-mills  were  $244  per  year,  for  sixty-six  hours  of 
labor  per  week.  It  thus  appears  that  even  if  wages  of  cot- 
ton operatives  have  not  fallen  here  since  1880,  as  all  evi- 
dences indicate,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  in  one  of  the 
most  highly  protected  of  our  great  industries,  the  rate,  even 
of  nominal  wages,  is  lower  than  in  England,  while  the  hours 
of  labor  are  eighteen  per  cent  longer  and  the  cost  of  living 
fully  twenty  per  cent  higher.  In  the  same  way  it  may  be 
shown,  though  perhaps  in  a  less  striking  manner,  that  in 
other  of  our  protected  industries  the  average  English  opera- 
tive receives  more  money  for  an  hour's  labor  than  the  aver- 
age American  workman,  though  his  production  is  only  half 
as  great. 

Let  it  not  be  understood  that  this  could  be  said  of  all,  or 
of  most  of  our  industries ;  nor,  in  fact,  could  it  be  said  of 
any  except  those  which  it  is  the  direct  object  of  protection 
to  encourage,  and  in  which  we  would  the  least  expect  it,  if 
there  be  any  foundation  at  all  for  the  pleas  of  protectionists 
in  regard  to  wages. 

3.  But  even  if  it  were  true  that  both  nominal  and  real 
wages  are  higher  in  the  United  States  than  in  England,  it 
would  not  constitute  a  valid  plea  for  protection,  though  it 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  137 

has  been  highly  effective  as  such.  The  necessity  of  protec- 
tion does  not  follow  as  a  conclusion.  England  pays  the 
highest  wages  of  any  country  in  Europe  or  Asia,  and  yet 
she  competes  successfully  in  all  the  markets  of  the  world. 
Wages  in  Great  Britain  are  at  least  three  times  as  high  as 
in  India,  and  twice  as  high  as  the  average  of  the  rest  of 
Europe  ;  yet  the  English  sell  their  goods  in  India  and  out- 
strip all  the  rest  of  Europe  in  all  the  marts  of  the  globe. 
Why  can  not  we  do  the  same  ?  If  the  argument  of  protec- 
tionists is  worth  anything  as  applied  to  the  United  States,  it 
is  equally  as  valid  when  applied  to  Great  Britain.  The  fact 
is,  that  England  pays  high  wages  as  compared  with  the  rest 
of  Europe,  and  especially  the  protected  countries,  because 
her  labor  is  more  productive  than  the  labor  of  Austria, 
Russia,  and  Italy,  and  because  she  finds  that  her  high  wages 
are  cheaper  with  large  production  than  low  wages  and  the 
small  production  that  prevails  elsewhere  in  Europe.  Are 
Americans,  whose  improved  processes  of  manufacture  en- 
able them  to  produce  with  a  given  force  of  operatives  twice 
as  many  goods  as  England,  willing  to  confess  that  we  are 
banished  from  the  markets  of  the  world  because  of  an  insig- 
nificant difference  between  the  nominal  wages  here  and  in 
Europe  ?  If  high  wages  can  handicap  a  nation,  how  is  it 
that  England  can  send  her  ships  into  every  port  of  the 
world  ?  Is  it  a  strange  thing  that  our  people  are  perceiving 
that  this  plea  of  high  wages  and  flood  of  pauper  goods  is  a 
delusive  cry  purposely  raised  to  divert  public  attention  from 
the  true  design  of  protection,  —  the  enrichment  of  favored 
classes  at  the  general  expense  ? 

4.  The  difference  of  wages  between  the  United  States 
and  England  is  not  so  great  as  it  is  between  the  States  of 
the  Union.  Colorado  pays  wages  three  times  as  high  as 
North  Carolina,  Dakota  twice  as  high  as  Alabama,  California 
nearly  twice  as  high  as  Massachusetts,  Illinois  higher  than 


138  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

Virginia.  If  there  is  any  truth  in  the  complaining  wail  of 
protectionists  about  high  wages,  is  it  not  time  for  some  of 
our  most  prosperous  and  highly  productive  states  to  raise 
the  same  cry  against  their  less  fortunate  sisters?  But  if 
manufacturers  would  justly  feel  ashamed  to  suggest  such  a 
complaint,  there  is  far  less  ground  for  the  persistent  outcry 
against  "the  pauper  goods  and  the  dangerous  competition 
of  Europe." 

5.  The  exact  opposite  of  the  plea  that  high  wages  make 
protection  necessary  is  the  fact.     It  is  the  condition  of  low 
wages  and  not  high  that  needs  protection.     High-priced 
labor  is  often  the  cheapest,  and  an  industry  employing  it 
can  take  care  of  itself.     Although  common  labor  in  India 
costs  only  ten  cents  a  day,  yet  the  cash  outlay  for  construct- 
ing a  mile  of  railway  is  as  great  there  as  it  is  in  the  United 
States.     The  iron  mines  of  Russia  are  worked  by  serfs  at 
seven  cents  a  day,  and  yet  it  costs  as  much  to  make  a  ton 
of  pig  iron  in  Russia  as  in  England.     In  India  it  takes  one 
day  with  wages  at  ten  cents  to  make  by  hand  a  yard  of 
gunny-cloth ;  but  in  England  a  loom  will  make  one  hun- 
dred yards  in  a  day ;  and  though  the  wages  there  should 
be  $2,  the  cost  for  labor  is  only  one  fifth  as  great  per  yard 
as  in  India.     Just  in  the  same  way  do  we  find  that  Ameri- 
can labor  is  the  most  productive  in  the  world,  is  really  as 
cheap  as  any,  and  therefore  can  compete  with  any  nation 
on  the  globe.     This  plea  for  government  aid  is  based  upon 
the  false  assumption  that  if  wages  are  high,  profits  must  be 
low.     The  fact  is  rather  that  wages  are  high  because  profits 
are  high. 

6.  In  Europe  this  argument  is  exactly  reversed.     The 
economists  there  understand  this  subject  better  than  we. 
An  English  operative  receives  more  wages  in  a  week  than 
a  Russian  workman  in  a  month ;  and  yet  the  English  labor 
is  so  much  the  cheaper  of  the  two  that  the  English  products 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  139 

overleap  the  wall  of  Russian  tariffs  and  find  a  market  in  the 
capital  of  the  Czar.  In  Europe  it  is  understood  that  the 
countries  of  high  wages  and  high  productiveness  are  able 
to  take  care  of  themselves  in  competition  with  all  the  rest 
of  mankind.  When  David  A.  Wells  was  Commissioner  of 
the  Revenue  of  the  United  States  in  1867,  he  went  to 
Europe  in  an  official  capacity  to  study  the  leading  indus- 
tries of  that  continent.  At  that  time  he  was  a  strong  pro- 
tectionist. He  says :  "  As  I  went,  note-book  in  hand, 
straight  from  the  factories  and  machine  shops  of  England 
to  the  factories  and  machine  shops  of  the  continent,  I  found 
that  just  as  wages  decreased,  the  demand  for  protection  to 
domestic  industries  and  the  dread  of  British  competition 
increased."  Europe  dreads  English  competition  because 
it  is  clearly  seen  that  her  superior  productiveness  far  out- 
balances her  higher  wages.  One  day  it  will  be  seen  in  the 
Unitqd  States,  also,  that  the  high  wages  which  labor  can 
earn,  instead  of  being  an  evidence  of  a  high  cost  of  pro- 
duction, is  direct  proof  of  a  low  cost :  and  instead  of  show- 
ing that  government  favor  is  needed,  it  shows  that  none  is 
necessary. 

7.  Instead  of  protection  being  needed  to  offset  high 
wages,  protection  is  needed,  if  at  all,  to  offset  protection. 
It  is  a  truth  that  we  can  not  compete,  to  any  great  extent, 
with  England  in  the  world's  markets ;  but  high  wages  are 
not  the  cause  of  this  inability.  The  chief  reason,  as  was 
shown,  is  that  we  have  handicapped  ourselves  with  a  moun- 
tain of  antecedent  taxes  on  raw  material.  Manufacturers 
understand  this  better  than  any  one  else.  Not  long  ago  a 
candid  manufacturer  of  Philadelphia  said,  "  Do  you  think 
high  priced  labor  hurts  us  ?  No  ;  not  that  so  much  as  the 
cost  of  material."  There  is  no  wonder  that  we  are  not 
able  to  compete  in  the  race  for  commercial  superiority  with 
those  who  enter  the  course  not  hindered  by  such  weights. 


140  7S  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

It  may  be  well  to  remember  that  the  cry  about  high  wages 
was  originally  raised,  and  is  still  raised,  to  divert  public  at- 
tention from  this  true  cause  of  our  banishment  from  the 
markets  of  the  world.  The  time  will  come  when,  like  Eng- 
land, we  will  send  out  our  products  to  all  the  marts  of  the 
globe ;  but  it  will  never  be  while  we  continue  to  build  up  a 
legal  barrier  to  keep  our  products  in  and  the  goods  of 
Europe  out. 

8.  While  our  manufacturing  industries  are  proclaiming 
their  weakness,  and  crying  their  inability  to  compete,  agri- 
culture is  sending  its  cotton  and  its  grain   to  meet   the 
cotton  and  grain  of  India,  in  the  markets  of  Europe.     And 
yet,  as  will  be  shown,  agriculture  has  no  favor,  and  can 
have  no  favor,  from  Government.     It  does  not  ask  any. 
Though  it  is  burdened  with  the  major  part  of  the  tax  which 
protection  imposes,  and  pays  the  highest  farm  wages  on 
the  globe,  it  competes  successfully  with  the  Irish  peasant, 
the  Hindoo  ryot,  and  the  Russian  serf.     Is  there  any  rea- 
son why  our  agriculture  can  win  its  own  way  in  the  world, 
while  our  iron,  steel,  woollen,  cotton,  and  silk  manufac- 
tures must  continue  to  draw  bounties  from  a  paternal  Gov- 
ernment for  a  score  of  years?     Our  farmers  pay  higher 
wages  than  their  foreign  competitors.     In  fact,  there  is  a 
greater  difference  between  the  farm  wages  of  the  United 
States  and  Europe,  than  in  any  other  kind  of  production. 
There  can  be  no  reason,  except  the  tariff  itself,  why  all 
other  industries  should  not  assume  an  equally  self-respect- 
ing and  independent  attitude  in  the  commercial  world. 

9.  But  we  would  "  stoop  to  conquer."     Let  us  assume 
that  since  wages  are  high,  protection  is  necessary.     How 
much  of  it  is  needed  ?     On  woollens  the  people  pay  to-day 
sixty-seven  per  cent.    In  theory,  it  is  to  offset  wages  twenty- 
five  per  cent  higher  than  the  foreign.     In  fact,  it  is  nearly 
four  times  as  much  as  the  entire  amount  paid  for  wages. 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  141 

It  is  shown  elsewhere  that  annually  the  people  pay  makers 
of  steel  rails  a  bounty  of  about  $27,000,000.  This  is  three 
and  a  half  times  as  much  as  the  total  wages  paid  in  that 
industry. 

The  tariff  now  in  force  averages  about  forty-two  per  cent 
on  the  entire  volume  of  dutiable  goods ;  and  since  foreign 
goods  continue  to  "  inundate  "  us  in  increasing  quantities 
from  year  to  year,  it  is  certain  that  the  market  price  of  our 
protected  articles  is  fully  forty-two  per  cent  higher  than  it 
would  be  without  any  tariff.  But  the  census  of  1880  shows 
that  the  entire  amount  of  wages  paid  in  our  protected  in- 
dustries was  less  than  eighteen  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the 
goods  produced.  Since  it  is  not  claimed  that  wages  are 
more  than  fifty  per  cent  higher  here  than  in  England,  the 
tariff,  on  the  theory  of  protectionists,  should  merely  balance 
this  outlay.  Of  course  a  tax  of  six  per  cent  on  the  entire 
product  would  be  just  sufficient  to  reimburse  the  manufac- 
turers for  the  one  third  of  extra  outlay  on  the  score  of 
wages.  But  instead  of  taking  six,  they  have  taken,  and  are 
now  taking  forty-two,  —  just  seven  times  as  much  as  they 
claim  !  Protected  on  account  of  high  wages,  by  an  average 
bounty  of  forty-two  per  cent,  which  is  two  and  a  half  times 
as  much  as  the  entire  amount  of  wages  paid !  Will  the 
people  continue  to  be  deluded  by  such  false  and  mislead- 
ing pleas?  It  is  intolerable  that  favored  industries  should 
have  the  effrontery  to  urge  this  argument  of  high  wages, 
when  they  know  that  they  are  receiving,  and  for  a  score  of 
years  have  been  receiving,  seven  times  as  much  bounty  as 
they  should  receive,  even  if  their  claim  were  true,  and  it 
were  the  proper  function  of  government  to  guarantee  the 
success  of  these  industries.  If  Cicero  were  in  our  Senate, 
as  he  was  in  the  Roman,  he  would  have  as  much  occasion 
to  rebuke  our  protectionists  for  their  audacity  as  he  did 
Catiline  for  his. 


142  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

How  hollow  and  fallacious  appear  the  words  of  protec- 
tionists when  they  address  the  workmen  !  The  tariff  gives 
us  high  prices,  and  hence  we  can  pay  you  letter  wages.  Jf 
the  tariff  is  reduced,  we  shall  have  to  close  our  mills  and 
throw  you  out  of  employment.  Without  protection,  you  will 
be  reduced  to  the  level  of  English  paupers,  Russian  serfs,  and 
Hindoo  slaves  I  How  false  and  misleading  is  their  plea  to 
farmers,  professional  men,  and  toilers  in  unprotected  in- 
dustries !  Protection  enables  us  to  compete  with  the  pauper 
wages  of  Europe,  keeps  back  the  disastrous  flood  of  foreign 
goods,  cheapens  our  products,  and  brings  general  prosperity 
to  the  country.  Thus  from  the  laboratory  of  a  fertile  im- 
agination is  evolved  a  dogma  suitable  for  every  occasion  ; 
and  protection,  like  the  chameleon,  can  change  its  colors 
to  suit  the  varying  necessities  of  the  moment. 

Is  it  not  apparent  that  protection  is  a  subtle  scheme  in- 
vented to  raise  prices  and  tax  the  millions  without  their 
knowledge,  and  neither  to  employ  labor  nor  raise  wages  ?  Is 
it  not  a  crafty  device  to  take  money  from  one  man,  with- 
out arresting  his  attention,  and  pass  it  over  to  another, 
under  the  forms  of  law  ?  No  one  in  the  world  knows  this 
better  than  the  men  who  reap  the  profits  of  the  system. 
No  one  knows  any  better  than  they,  that  the  cry  "  high 
wages  !  protection  of  labor  ! "  on  one  occasion,  and  the 
plea,  "  pauper  goods  of  Europe,  ruin  of  high  wages,  disas- 
trous foreign  competition,"  on  another,  are  but  delusive 
catchwords  to  arrest  the  public  ear,  and  to  capture  the 
votes  of  men  who  allow  others  to  do  their  thinking.  The 
very  suggestion  that  wealthy  manufacturers  besiege  Con- 
gress every  year  to  secure  the  enactment  of  a  high  tariff  in 
order  to  reduce  the  price  of  their  goods,  and  to  cut  off  their 
profits  by  raising  wages,  is  an  absurdity  of  such  transparent 
and  childlike  simplicity,  that,  unless  it  be  uttered  as  a  joke, 
it  is  an  insult  to  the  intelligence  of  the  American  people. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

HOW  DOES   PROTECTION  AFFECT  OUR  FOREIGN 
TRADE? 


has  been  shown  that  foreign  trade  is  profitable 
to  both  nations  engaged  therein.  All  trade 
has  its  basis  in  the  fact  that  each  party  in  an 
exchange  has  expended  less  upon  what  he 
gives  than  he  would  have  to  expend  in  order  to  pro- 
duce that  which  he  receives.  This  difference  measures 
the  gain.  If  we  export  wheat  to  England  and  import 
coffee  from  Brazil,  it  is  evident  that  the  exchange  is  profit- 
able to  all  of  the  countries,  else  it  could  not  have  had  an 
existence  at  all,  or,  having  an  existence,  it  could  not  con- 
tinue. In  consequence  of  this  mutual  profit  the  extension 
of  commerce  has  always  claimed  the  attention  of  enlight- 
ened nations.  But  too  often  it  has  been  to  sell  alone. 

The  ground  thought  in  foreign  trade  is  that  it  is  unwise, 
even  if  it  were  possible,  for  a  country  to  produce  everything 
which  it  consumes.  A  people  will  export  only  those  things 
which  it  can  produce  more  advantageously  than  other 
nations.  No  place  can  be  found  in  which  to  sell  its  rel- 
atively more  costly  products.  There  is  no  other  reason 
why  we  export  petroleum  and  China  tea.  It  follows  that 
what  we  buy  from  another  nation  are  the  very  articles  which 


144  7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

it  sells  low.  We  pay  for  them  by  our  most  efficient  labor, 
and  hence  at  the  lowest  possible  cost  to  us. 

But  protection  denies  that  foreign  commerce  is  desir- 
able. It  is  the  very  soul  of  the  system  to  reject  the  foreign 
facility  of  production,  and  to  call  in  legislation  to  compel 
us  to  engage  in  every  known  industry  this  side  of  the 
impossible.  It  declares  that  the  advantages  of  foreign 
production  must  be  neutralized  to  our  people,  and  it  as- 
sumes that  legislation  has  power  to  do  this. 

"  The  Balance  of  Trade  "  is  a  phrase  often  found  in  the 
arguments  of  protectionists.  It  means  of  course  the  dif- 
ference between  the  value  of  the  national  imports  and 
exports ;  and  the  assertion  is  that  if  more  is  imported  than 
is  exported,  the  balance  must  be  made  up  by  cash.  This 
is  declared  to  be  a  public  loss. 

From  a  historical  point  of  view,  is  this  assertion  based 
on  fact  or  on  fallacy?  Levi  Woodbury,  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  under  Presidents  Jackson  and  Van  Buren, 
issued  a  Report  to  Congress  in  which  it  was  shown  from 
the  books  of  the  custom-houses,  that  ever  since  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  government  to  1835  tne  United  States 
have  imported  more  than  they  have  exported.  The  facts 
in  regard  to  this  balance  since  the  year  1835  may  be  found 
in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  on  Com- 
merce and  Navigation  for  any  year.  It  there  appears  that 
the  balance  has  been  steadily  against  us  during  all  the  fifty 
years.  Though  in  a  few  individual  years  the  exports  ex- 
ceeded the  imports,  yet  there  has  not  been  a  single  hour 
in  which  the  balance  has  not  been  hundreds  of  millions  of 
dollars  against  us.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  adverse 
balance  was  never  so  heavy  against  us  as  it  has  been  under 
the  Morrill  Tariff,  which  was  enacted  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  this  very  thing.  Why  we  should  have  contin- 
ued to  do  so  foolish  a  thing  during  all  our  history  as  to 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  145 

persistently  throw  away  the  benefits  which  were  expected 
to  flow  from  commercial  isolation,  is  a  thing  which  no  man 
can  find  out. 

The  statement  of  protectionists  concerning  an  adverse 
balance  is  erroneous  in  the  light  of  good  reason  also. 
Instead  of  being  the  measure  of  our  loss,  it  is  one  of  the 
evidences  of  our  gain.  Suppose  a  cargo  of  20,000  bushels 
of  wheat,  worth  in  New  York  $i  a  bushel,  were  sent  to 
Liverpool.  If  it  were  worth  there  only  $20,000,  the  ven- 
ture was  a  losing  one.  But  if  the  wheat  sell  for  $30,000, 
and  the  money  be  invested  in  merchandise  which  will  sell 
in  New  York  for  $40,000,  the  voyage  was  attended  by  a 
profit  of  $20,000,  less  the  cost  of  transportation.  Of 
course  the  books  of  the  custom-house  will  show  an  ad- 
verse balance  in  this  one  transaction ;  yet  this  money  is 
gain,  though  only  a  part  of  the  gain.  On  the  other  hand, 
let  us  suppose  the  ship  should  strike  a  rock  and  the 
wheat  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  Atlantic.  The  theory  of 
the  balance  of  trade  would  show  by  figures,  which  are 
supposed  not  to  lie,  that  there  were  $20,000  exports  and 
no  imports,  and  hence  the  transaction  was  one  of  clear 
profit  to  the  country.  The  same  principle  holds  true  of 
our  foreign  trade  in  the  aggregate,  so  that  an  adverse 
balance,  instead  of  being  evidence  of  loss,  is  an  indication 
of  gain. 

Again  the  invariable  law  of  exchange  is  product  for 
product.  Gold  is  only  one  of  these.  We  can  buy  nothing 
abroad,  except  by  reason  of  something  that  has  been  sent 
abroad.  No  man  can  buy  and  pay  for  a  greater  volume 
of  goods  than  he  can  produce  by  his  labor.  Iceland  has 
small  imports,  not  because  the  people  do  not  need  the 
good  things  of  the  world,  but  because  its  production  is  so 
small  that  it  can  send  nothing  out  to  pay  for  them.  The 
exports  of  a  country  always  balance  its  imports,  while  the 


146  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

difference  in  the  custom-house  valuations  usually  indicates 
the  gain  of  the  exchange. 

But  from  still  another  point  of  view  the  doctrine  of  the 
balance  of  trade  is  a  delusion.  If  such  a  thing  as  an  ad- 
verse balance  could  ever  really  exist,  it  would  be  paid  out 
of  the  margin  in  home  production.  In  our  country  the 
volume  of  domestic  exchanges  is  always  many  times  larger 
than  that  of  foreign  commerce.  Let  us  suppose  that  the 
value  of  home  production  is  represented  by  10,  and  the 
exports  by  2.  This  leaves  8  for  home  consumption.  If, 
now,  the  imports  are  4,  the  balance  is  2  against  us,  which 
is  easily  paid  out  of  the  8,  leaving  a  balance  of  6  in  our 
favor.  So  long  as  we  continue  large  producers,  we  may 
snap  our  fingers  at  the  bugbear  of  "  adverse  balances." 
It  is  only  the  idler,  the  spendthrift,  who  has  reason  to  fear 
that  he  will  reach  the  bottom  of  his  exchequer  by  buying 
from  his  neighbors  the  cheap  things  they  offer  him. 

The  fact  is  that  the  argument  based  on  "  the  balance  of 
trade  "  is  a  fallacious  remnant  of  the  Mercantile  Theory. 
It  is  promulgated  to  excuse  the  opposition  of  protection  to 
foreign  importation,  and  to  frighten  and  befog  the  unthink- 
ing. It  is  often  argued  that  importation  takes  money  out 
of  the  country,  and  must  therefore  be  an  evil ;  and  that  if 
we  prevent  imports,  we  keep  the  gold  in  the  country,  and 
are  to  that  extent  richer  than  before.  This  reminds  one  of 
the  old  idea  that  the  benefits  of  commerce  are  one-sided 
and  not  reciprocal,  —  that  all  selling  is  gain  and  all  buying 
loss.  This  was  the  precise  plea  of  Louis  XIV.,  of  France, 
that  since  the  millions  squandered  by  him  in  gratifying  his 
passion  for  building  remained  in  the  country,  no  harm  was 
done  by  his  extravagance.  He  even  said  that  the  building 
of  the  palace  of  Versailles  was  a  kingly  mode  of  doing 
charity.  But  history  declares  that  his  improvidence  was  a 
chief  cause  of  the  horrible  French  Revolution.  From  the 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  147 

time  of  Pizarro  and  Cortez,  Spain  imported  the  precious 
metals  from  her  American  colonies,  and  prohibited  the 
exportation  of  gold  and  silver  in  order  to  keep  herself  rich. 
But  the  country  sunk  lower  and  lower  in  poverty  every 
year,  because  it  would  not  produce.  For  more  than  four 
centuries  the  Orient  sold  to  Europe  without  buying  in 
return.  But  Europe  steadily  increased  in  wealth,  and  at 
no  time  faster  than  when  the  lamentation  about  the  east- 
ward flow  of  gold  was  the  loudest.  The  gold  went  because 
Europe  was  making  a  profit  by  sending  it. 

The  fact  is,  that  products  and  not  metals  constitute  real 
wealth ;  and  since  an  adverse  balance  usually  denotes  the 
national  gain  and  not  the  amount  of  specie  export  made 
necessary,  a  country  may  have  a  balance  against  it  all  the 
time,  as  the  United  States  has  had,  and  yet  have  a  surplus 
of  specie  and  abound  in  prosperity.  When  a  man  hoards 
gold,  we  call  him  a  short-sighted  miser;  when  a  nation 
does  it,  we  call  it  a  mark  of  financial  wisdom.  No  man 
hesitates  to  pay  out  his  specie  for  what  he  needs.  He 
enriches  himself  by  so  doing.  So  does  a  nation.  There  is 
no  such  a  thing  as  a  national  trade  as  distinguished  from 
the  sum  of  individual  trades ;  and  as  individuals  would 
justly  resent  the  interference  of  Government  with  their 
private  investments,  so  may  the  aggregate  of  men,  the 
Nation,  be  safely  left  to  manage  its  own  sales  and  purchases 
without  any  paternal  supervision  or  sub-providence  of 
legislation. 

But  let  it  be  assumed,  as  protectionists  assert,  that  foreign 
importation  is  an  evil,  and  that  it  is  plainly  the  duty  of  law- 
makers to  restrict  or  prevent  it.  A  protective  tariff  is  the 
engine  by  which  they  would  do  this.  But  protection  sig- 
nally fails  to  do  the  very  thing  it  was  called  in  to  accom- 
plish. In  1860  imports  amounted  in  round  numbers,  as 
given  in  the  official  publications,  to  353  millions;  in  1870, 


148  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

to  435  millions  ;  in  1880,  to  667  millions ;  a  nearly  steady 
increase  under  protection,  and  in  a  greater  ratio  than  our 
increase  of  population.  Last  year  (1887)  the  custom-house 
receipts  were  $217,286,893,  which  were  the  largest  of  our 
history,  indicating  the  largest  importations  we  have  ever 
known.  This  is  not  at  all  strange.  Since  these  goods 
could  not  get  into  the  country  without  paying  the  duties,  it 
is  evident  that  they  would  not  have  been  brought  here,  had 
not  a  market  awaited  them  at  prices  equal  to  the  foreign 
price,  plus  the  duty,  plus  cost  of  carriage,  plus  a  profit  on 
the  venture.  This  shows  two  things  :  first,  that  protection,  as 
already  pointed  out,  raises  prices  of  domestic  and  imported 
goods  alike  by  the  full  amount  of  the  duty ;  second,  that 
because  of  these  congested  prices,  protection  does .  not 
even  tend  to  prevent  importation.  As  a  scheme  for  the 
arrest  of  imports,  protection  is  an  utter  failure.  No  one 
knows  this  better  than  our  protected  manufacturers. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  as  many  do,  that  high  duties 
of  necessity  tend  to  prevent  importation.  All  depends  on 
prices.  To  illustrate  :  Suppose  without  a  tariff  a  hat  can  be 
sold  in  New  York  at  $1.00.  Let  a  tax  of  fifty  cents  be  laid 
on  foreign  hats.  Now  no  importation  can  take  place  so 
long  as  the  price  in  New  York  is  below  $1.50.  The  home 
producers  have  a  monopoly.  So  soon  as  the  price  rises 
above  $1.50,  importation  is  encouraged,  and  the  higher  the 
price  the  more  is  it  stimulated.  This  is  the  real  interpreta- 
tion of  our  large  and  increasing  importation. 

European  merchants  have  no  objection  to  paying  our 
import  duties,  since  they  are  immediately  reimbursed  for  the 
outlay  by  the  price  which  they  receive  for  their  goods,  and 
thus  shift  the  burden  upon  the  American  consumer.  We 
are  "  inundated  "  far  more  under  protection  than  we  ever 
have  been,  or  would  now  be,  under  low  tariff.  We  are 
"  flooded  "  to-day  as  never  before.  During  the  ten  years 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  149 

between  1850  and  1860  under  a  revenue  tariff  the  annual 
imports  averaged  $9.74  fler  capita  of  our  entire  population  ; 
but  during  the  ten  years  between  1870  and  1880  it  aver- 
aged $12.07  Per  capita.  The  fact  is,  that  protection  puts  a 
premium  on  importation,  and,  by  keeping  prices  at  high 
tide  all  the  time,  increases  and  tends  to  increase  the  volume 
of  "pauper  goods  which  flood  the  country."  Is  it  not 
high  prices,  rather  than  small  importation,  that  protec- 
tionists seek?  In  order  to  cause  inflated  values,  they  are 
willing  to  face  inflated  imports.  Both  experience  and 
good  reason  ought  to  give  them  pause  in  their  talk  about 
restricting  importation  by  the  crude  device  of  a  cordon  of 
custom-houses.  Trade,  more  agile  than  the  Tartars,  will 
scale  any  such  a  Chinese  Wall.  The  merchants  of  Europe 
will  continue  to  laugh  at  us  for  our  simplicity,  as  Remus 
did  at  Romulus  of  old,  when  he  leaped  over  his  brother's 
spade-erected  battlements. 

But  though  protection  does  not  restrict  importation,  it  is 
most  potent  in  preventing  exports.  To  sell  abroad  has 
always  been  deemed  so  desirable  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  in  explicit  terms  forbids  all  tax  on  exports. 
It  is  indispensable  that  we  should  produce  a  surplus  for 
export,  else  we  will  not  be  able  to  command  the  surplus  of 
other  nations.  The  chief  reason  of  our  inability  to  export 
manufactured  goods  is  the  tariff  which  is  placed  for  pro- 
tective purposes  on  almost  all  kinds  of  articles.  Thus  from 
the  bottom  to  the  top  of  the  industrial  pyramid  protection 
of  necessity  increases  the  first  cost  of  our  products.  But 
this  is  not  a  simple  tax :  it  is  a  compound  one.  It  is 
cumulative  in  its  nature.  The  tax  levied  by  each  process 
is  charged  up,  together  with  the  profit  and  the  interest, 
upon  all  subsequent  processes  expended  upon  the  material ; 
so  that  the  cost  to  the  finisher  of  the  goods  is  greater  than 
the  sum  of  all  the  preceding  taxes. 


150  SS  PROTECTION  A   BEArEFIT? 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  idle  to  expect  our  manu- 
facturers to  sell  their  goods  in  foreign  lands.  If  we  can  not 
keep  European  goods  from  entering  our  market,  it  is  infi- 
nitely more  impossible  for  us  to  compete  with  them  in 
their  own  market  or  in  the  markets  of  the  world.  We  hear 
much  about  over-production.  This  means  in  reality,  not 
that  too  many  goods  are  made,  but  that  the  avenues  of 
export  are  closed  by  protection,  so  that  our  surplus  prod- 
ucts can  not  find  an  outlet  across  the  ocean,  or  even  to 
our  Canadian  and  Mexican  neighbors.  The  free,  unham- 
pered production  of  England  beats  us  back  from  every 
mart  we  would  enter. 

Protectionists  do  not  often  deny  that  their  system  drives 
us  from  the  foreign  market.  They  content  themselves  with 
glorifying  the  home  market.  They  seem  to  forget  that 
there  are  twenty-five  times  as  many  people  outside  the 
United  States  as  there  are  within  it,  and  that  the  larger 
part  of  these  would  gladly  buy  some  of  our  products  did 
we  not  by  a  device  misnamed  protection  cut  ourselves  off 
from  their  trade,  and  banish  ourselves  from  every  port  in 
both  hemispheres. 

If  a  nation  is  making  real  progress,  both  its  imports  and 
its  exports  should  increase  in  a  greater  ratio  than  popula- 
tion, since  this  shows  a  growing  production  and  a  higher 
average  scale  of  comforts.  As  to  imports,  we  have  done 
that,  and  we  are  still  doing  it.  But  the  ratio  of  our  manu- 
factured exports  has  been  nearly  steadily  growing  less  ever 
since  the  adoption  of  the  Morrill  Tariff.  In  1860,  under 
a  revenue  tariff  (see  Report  on  Commerce  and  Navigation 
for  any  year),  the  value  of  our  manufactured  exports  was 
ly-J  per  cent  of  all  our  exports.  In  1870,  under  high 
protection,  it  was  13/5  per  cent;  and  in  1880  it  had 
fallen  to  12  J  per  cent. 

Take  up  a  volume  of  the  Consular  Reports   which  the 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  151 

Government  issues  every  month.  No  statement  is  more  fre- 
quently made  by  our  consuls  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  than 
the  complaining  confession  that  our  goods  are  shut  out,  not 
by  lack  of  enterprise  on  the  part  of  our  merchants,  not  by 
inferior  quality,  not  by  lack  of  adaptation  to  the  wants 
of  the  trade,  but  solely  by  their  high  price.  In  the  light  of 
the  facts,  all  the  talk  about  our  growing  ability  to  command 
the  markets  of  the  world  and  that  our  supremacy  in  com- 
merce is  being  everywhere  acknowledged,  is  a  strange 
mixture  of  half-truths,  sophism,  and  falsehood. 

In  this  regard,  how  do  we  compare  with  England  ?  When 
Great  Britain  struck  down  the  protective  system  which  had 
been  her  policy  for  centuries,  she  soon  took  possession  of 
the  world's  markets.  She  now  easily  holds  them  against 
all  rivals  who  are  handicapped  in  the  race  by  artificial  bur- 
dens. The  total  foreign  commerce  of  the  United  States  in 
1877  was  $ i, 1 76,000,000,  much  the  larger  part  of  the  im- 
ports being  merchandise,  and  of  the  exports  agricultural 
products.  In  the  same  year  the  foreign  trade  of  Great 
Britain,  with  a  population  and  a  production  about  half  as 
great  as  the  United  States,  amounted  to  $2,978,355,000, — 
over  two  and  one  half  times  our  own.  Almost  exactly  the 
same  thing  occurs  every  year. 

Again,  in  1849,  when  the  protective  system  disappeared 
from  England,  the  exports  of  Great  Britain  were  only 
$\Q.f)T)  per  capita  ;  in  1859  they  were  $22.11 ;  in  1869  they 
were  $29.79  >  an<^  i*1  !88o  they  were  $32.35.  In  the  year 
1880  the  total  exports  of  the  United  States  amounted  to 
$  1 6.66  per  capita,  —  only  half  of  that  of  England,  —  though 
the  volume  of  our  exports  in  that  year  was  greater  than 
in  any  previous  year  in  our  history. 

In  1879  our  exports  of  cotton  goods  —  which  was  our 
largest  item  of  manufactured  products  —  were  $10,850,000, 
which  was  less  than  it  was  twenty  years  before,  under 


152  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

revenue  tariff.  During  the  same  year  the  export  of  cotton 
goods  from  England  was  $60,000,000  more  than  it  was 
in  1860;  so  that  the  mere  increase  of  exports  in  this  one 
line  of  products  was  almost  six  times  as  great  as  the  whole 
of  our  own.  How  long  shall  we  continue  to  hear  the  talk 
of  those  who  praise  the  industrial  independence  and  pro- 
claim the  commercial  superiority  of  the  United  States? 

All  readers  of  newspapers  are  familiar  with  the  general 
and  unsupported  statement  that  our  cutlery  is  selling  even 
in  Sheffield  more  freely  than  the  goods  of  Sheffield  manu- 
facture, both  being  displayed  at  the  same  counter  and  at 
the  same  price.  What  are  the  facts?  The  Report  on 
Commerce  and  Navigation  for  any  recent  year  will  show 
that  our  imports  of  cutlery,  chiefly  from  Sheffield,  are  from 
eight  to  twenty  times  as  great  as  our  exports.  A  few  years 
ago  Mr.  Morrill,  the  author  of  the  tariff,  represented  Shef- 
field as  rapidly  losing  control  of  its  favorite  industry.  But 
that  city  is  now  sending  direct  to  the  markets  of  the  United 
States,  overleaping  our  tariff  walls,  twice  as  large  a  volume 
of  its  goods  as  when  the  words  were  uttered.  Is  it  very 
probable  that  the  grass  is  going  to  seed  in  the  streets  of 
Sheffield?  So  much  for  the  boast  that  our  goods  are 
competing  with  the  products  of  England  under  the  shadow 
of  her  factories,  and  driving  them  out  of  the  marts  of  the 
world. 

Thus  with  production  normally  great  through  natural 
resource  and  the  increasing  use  and  power  of  machinery, 
but  now  further  stimulated  by  artificial  means,  with  foreign 
exportation  cut  off,  with  importation  unchecked,  and  the 
domestic  consumption  reduced  by  high  prices,  is  it  not 
a  natural  and  inevitable  circumstance  that  our  markets 
should  be  all  the  time  congested  with  goods  and  the  chan- 
nels of  trade  choked  up  with  the  plethora  of  our  pro- 
duction? Over-production  is  one  of  the  loudest  cries  of 


JS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  153 

our  times,  and  there  are  strong  indications  that  our  over- 
supply  of  products  will  be  permanent.  The  result  is,  that 
American  manufacturers  are  already  compelled  to  do  one 
of  two  things,  —  either  to  export  their  goods  at  a  loss,  or 
else  restrict  their  productions  by  running  on  short  time. 
No  fact  is  better  understood  than  that  they  are  doing  the 
latter  of  these  things.  Both  of  them  mean  enforced  idle- 
ness to  thousands,  wages  reduced  to  a  starvation  minimum, 
and  the  labor  agitation  which  is  sure  to  follow. 

The  overshadowing  commercial  question  of  the  hour  is, 
How  shall  we  obtain  more  extended  markets?  In  the 
light  of  the  fact  that  our  production  is  increasing  more 
rapidly  than  our  population,  the  high  talk  which  we  hear 
about  a  home  market  sounds  like  the  satire  of  a  political 
philosopher  or  the  plausible  half-truths  of  a  sophist.  The 
home  market  is  already  full,  and  protection  has  no  power 
to  enlarge  it.  No  one  knows  better  than  our  protected 
manufacturers  that  the  real  cause  of  the  stagnation  in  their 
business  is  not  high  wages,  is  not  low  prices,  is  not  foreign 
competition  in  our  markets,  is  not  the  production  of  too 
large  a  volume  of  goods,  but  rather  the  inability  to  enter 
distant  ports  which  protection  has  fastened  upon  our  indus- 
tries. The  time  will  come,  and  perhaps  at  no  distant  day, 
when  manufacturers  will  themselves  confess  that  protection 
does  not  protect  our  markets,  that  its  effect  is  exactly  the 
reverse,  and  that  with  a  constantly  increasing  production 
it  is  far  wiser  to  seek  an  international  trade  than  to  confine 
ourselves  to  a  national  one  which  we  are  forced  to  divide 
with  foreigners.  They  will  cease  to  clamor  for  "  protection 
against  foreign  products  which  deluge  the  market,"  and 
voluntarily  enter  the  open  field  of  competition,  in  order, 
by  securing  the  world  for  a  market,  to  insure  the  existence 
and  prosperity  of  their  industries.  This  time  has  already 
come  in  the  case  of  some  of  our  most  far-sighted  and  pro- 


154  fs  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

gressive  manufacturers.  Many  of  them  are  seeing  as  they 
never  saw  before,  that  commercial  isolation  is  both  a  delu- 
sion and  a  failure,  and  that  real  industrial  independence 
can  never  come  till  we  secure  the  world  for  our  market. 
Many  of  them  are  seeing  that  our  markets  could  not  be 
more  "  flooded  "  under  absolute  free  trade  than  they  are 
under  protection  ;  and  that  to  divide  with  others  a  market 
of  fifty  millions  of  people  is  vastly  less  advantageous  than 
to  divide  one  of  fifteen  hundred  millions. 

The  blessings  of  an  unrestricted  trade  came  to  England 
unsought.  It  came  from  the  unkindness  of  the  climate 
and  the  clamors  of  her  starving  millions.  It  will  probably 
come  to  us  also  from  causes  more  potent  than  any  device 
of  man.  Those  most  intimately  acquainted  with  the  inner, 
the  less  apparent,  and  the  more  subtile  operations  of  pro- 
tection —  the  manufacturers  themselves  —  are  seeing  that 
the  system  is  working  its  own  destruction.  It  has  within 
itself  the  seeds  of  death.  The  people,  too,  are  seeing  that 
the  primacy  of  industry  and  trade  is  within  our  grasp,  and 
that  to  reach  it  all  hindering  restrictions  of  law  must  be 
cast  aside.  May  the  final  adjustment  of  the  question  be 
reached  through  the  intelligent  deliberation  of  our  states- 
men and  people  ;  not  forced  upon  us  by  popular  uprisings, 
or  by  public  discontent  emphasizing  itself  in  the  turmoils 
of  revolution. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

HOW  DOES   PROTECTION  AFFECT  OUR  SHIPPING 
INTERESTS  ? 

ROM  the  beginning  of  our  history  we  have  been 
a  maritime  people.  Planted  in  the  wilderness 
of  the  New  World,  the  colonies  felt  that  ships 
were  a  first  necessity,  in  order  that  they  might 
draw  from  England  whatever  civilized  life  required,  and 
send  to  Europe  the  spontaneous  gifts  or  the  crude  products 
of  the  virgin  continent.  Beginning  with  the  construction 
of  the  "  Blessing  of  the  Bay  "  in  1631,  our  merchant  ma- 
rine rapidly  increased  in  importance  during  colonial  times, 
till  it  became  a  rival  of  the  maternal  "  mistress  of  the  seas." 
In  those  days  such  coast  towns  as  Marblehead,  Salem, 
Lynn,  and  Boston  were  centres  of  great  .activity  in  the 
shipping  trade.  For  a  century  and  a  half  ship-building 
flourished  here  not  only  without  any  protection,  but  in  the 
face  of  the  continual  hostility  of  England  toward  colonial 
shipping.  Although  the  Navigation  Laws  of  England  in 
1651  were  enacted  chiefly  against  Holland,  they  were  en- 
forced with  rigor  against  all  other  rivals,  and  especially 
against  her  own  colonies  in  America.  In  spite  of  this  at- 
tempt at  repression,  our  marine  interests  steadily  grew. 
How  great  they  were  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution, 


156  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

any  one  may  learn  from  Burke's  speech  in  Parliament  on 
"  Conciliation  with  America,"  or  in  Lord  North's  final  pro- 
posals preceding  the  outbreak  of  hostilities. 

All  this  was  accomplished  under  conditions  of  absolute 
free  trade  in  ships  and  shipping.  But  in  1 789,  by  one  of 
the  first  laws  enacted  under  the  Constitution,  all  foreign- 
built  ships  were  excluded  from  registry  under  the  American 
flag.  The  object  of  this  law,  which  has  remained  in  force 
during  all  our  history  to  this  hour,  was  to  make  it  profitable 
to  build,  own,  and  use  ships  in  America,  by  cutting  off  for- 
eign competition  in  ship-building.  The  result  now  is,  and 
has  always  been,  that  no  foreign-built  ships,  even  though 
owned  by  American  citizens,  could  be  used  on  the  ocean, 
unless  they  sailed  under  foreign  flags.  No  ships  except 
those  made  here  can  have  the  protection  of  our  laws. 
This  is  prohibition  expressed  in  the  strongest  language 
known  to  law-makers.  There  are  only  three  things  which 
American  citizens  are  positively  forbidden  to  buy  in  foreign 
markets ;  namely,  obscene  pictures  and  books,  drugs  and 
instruments  for  immoral  purposes,  and  ships!  The  first 
two  are  evidently  in  the  interest  of  public  morals.  The 
third  was  enacted  for  no  other  reason  than  to  encourage, 
and  if  possible  to  force  our  people  to  build  ships  instead  of 
buying  them. 

In  1792  it  was  enacted  that  no  foreign-made  vessel  should 
take  any  part  in  the  coasting  trade  of  the  United  States. 
That  law  has  always  remained  in  operation  and  is  on  the 
statute  books  to-day.  Thus  our  shipping  interests  have 
been  protected  to  the  point  of  prohibition  for  a  century. 

Under  the  present  tariff  and  other  periods  of  high  pro- 
tection it  has  been  impossible  to  build  ocean-going  ships 
in  this  country  in  competition  with  the  foreign  makers,  on 
account  of  high  duties  which  raised  the  cost  of  iron,  steel, 
lumber,  duck,  cordage,  and  all  material  entering  their  con- 


7S  PROTECTION-  A   BENEFIT?  157 

struction.  The  result  is,  that  for  many  years  our  mer- 
chants, importers,  and  ship-masters  have  found  themselves 
in  an  embarrassing  dilemma  in  which  it  was  unlawful  to  buy 
ships,  and  impossible  to  build  them. 

Let  us  see  the  facts.  According  to  official  statistics 
(see  Report  on  Commerce  and  Navigation  for  any  recent 
year),  the  tonnage  of  American  sailing  vessels  entering  our 
ports  from  foreign  countries  has  decreased  more  than  fifty 
per  cent  since  the  adoption  of  our  present  tariff.  But  the 
tonnage  of  foreign  vessels  has  increased  over  three  hundred 
percent.  During  the  four  years  just  before  1861  the  ton- 
nage of  American  steam  vessels  entering  our  ports  from 
foreign  countries  averaged  forty-one  per  cent  of  the  entire 
steam  tonnage.  But  during  the  four  years  just  before  1887 
it  averaged  only  sixteen  per  cent. 

It  is  there  shown  that  in  1856  seventy-one  per  cent  of 
the  entire  tonnage,  both  of  sail  and  of  steam,  entering  our 
ports  from  foreign  countries,  was  American,  and  twenty- 
nine  per  cent  was  foreign.  But  now  only  twenty  per  cent 
is  American  and  eighty  is  foreign.  In  1860  seven  tenths 
of  our  foreign  commerce  was  carried  in  our  own  ships.  In 
1870  thirty-five  per  cent  was  so  carried;  in  1875,  twenty- 
six  per  cent;  in  1880,  nineteen  per  cent;  and  in  1885, 
only  sixteen  per  cent.  Although  we  have  such  a  large 
trade  with  Brazil,  we  have  no  line  of  vessels  plying  between 
that  country  and  our  own ;  and  we  so  seldom  send  out  a 
vessel  thither  on  an  occasional  venture,  that  even  the  Lili- 
putian  kingdom  of  Belgium  has  a  larger  shipping  interest 
with  Brazil  than  we.  Furthermore,  the  Report  shows  that 
during  the  life  of  our  present  tariff  the  marine  service  of 
every  commercial  nation  has  greatly  increased,  —  several  of 
them  more  than  a  hundred  fold,  —  except  the  United 
States  alone.  We  have  declined  both  relatively  and  abso- 
lutely. These  are  luminous  facts. 


158  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

This  remarkable  decay  of  our  shipping  can  not  be  ac- 
counted for  by  any  natural  causes.  No  country  in  the 
world  is  so  well  endowed  as  ours  for  this  particular  form  of 
industry.  Our  timber  supply  is  not  equalled  in  any  quarter 
of  the  globe.  We  have  mountains  full  of  iron,  and  vast 
areas  underlaid  with  coal.  We  surpass  all  lands  in  the 
growth  of  cotton  for  sails,  and  we  equal  any  in  hemp  for 
cordage.  Our  sailors,  from  the  day  of  Paul  Jones,  have 
proved  themselves  at  least  the  equals  of  any  other,  and 
American  ingenuity  has  no  superior  in  the  invention  and 
use  of  the  most  approved  appliances  for  every  kind  of  pro- 
duction. Yet  it  is  conceded  by  all  that  ships  intended  for 
the  foreign  trade  can  not  be  built  in  our  dock-yards  in  com- 
petition with  those  of  the  Clyde.  But  this  excessive  cost 
does  not  arise  from  the  rate  of  wages  paid  ship-carpenters 
here.  It  is  chiefly  owing  to  the  artificial  dearness  of  the 
material  used  in  the  construction  of  ships. 

Thus  our  marine  interests  are  exposed  to  the  evils  of 
protective  taxation  on  one  hand,  and  to  the  competition  of 
European  ships  on  the  other.  With  a  smaller  first  cost, 
and,  hence,  lower  rates  for  freight,  the  ships  of  foreign  con- 
struction usurp  the  employment  naturally  belonging  to  our 
own,  and  they  are  left  to  rot  at  the  wharves,  or  to  be  sold 
to  the  junk-shops. 

Every  year  we  pay  to  foreigners  millions  of  dollars  to  do 
our  ocean  carrying.  If  this  were  a  natural  result,  it  would 
be  attended  by  no  loss  to  the  country.  But  it  is  a  result 
wholly  artificial.  Our  ship-owners  should  have  at  least  the 
lion's  share  of  this  business.  Our  ship-yards  might  resound 
again,  and  our  ports  would  be  filled  with  the  stars  and 
stripes,  instead  of  foreign  flags.  Instead  of  going  out  half- 
laden  with  crude  products  and  returning  with  an  empty 
bottom,  our  merchantmen  would  go  into  all  parts  of  the 
world  loaded  down  with  finished  products,  and  return 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  159 

freighted  with  the  good  things  peculiar  to  other  lands. 
Instead  of  sending  our  goods  on  a  triangular  voyage,  as  we 
now  do,  to  England,  there  to  be  re-shipped  with  additional 
charges  for  handling,  insurance,  and  commission,  all  at  the 
expense  of  the  original  producer,  our  products  would  go 
from  our  ports  direct  to  the  place  of  consumption. 

"  Go  to  the  ocean  !  "  thundered  Webster  in  1814.  But 
Massachusetts  has  never  been  able  to  regain  that  prosperity 
to  her  shipping  which  the  policy  of  protection  took  away. 
There  is  no  probability  that  she  ever  will  regain  it,  so  long 
as  the  system  is  adhered  to.  If  we  would  boast  of  bearing 
the  trident  of  Neptune,  we  must  abandon  a  tariff  system 
which  during  many  years  has  been  legislating  our  merchant 
marine  out  of  existence.  We  must  abandon  a  policy  which 
has  reduced  us  within  twenty-five  years  from  the  rank  of 
a  first-class  maritime  power  to  a  grade  lower  than  that  held 
by  us  when  we  were  a  colonial  weakling  of  Great  Britain. 

What  unrest  must  haunt  the  soul  of  Joseph  Rodman 
Drake,  who  wrote  the  beautiful  poem  on  "  The  American 
Flag ! " 

"  Flag  of  the  Seas  !  on  ocean  wave 
Thy  stars  shall  glitter  o'er  the  brave.'' 

Was  the  poem  a  joke?  Was  it  a  satire?  Was  it  the 
sentimental  bombast  of  a  school-boy  ?  Surely  in  the  light 
of  to-day  it  sounds  like  any  or  all  of  these,  —  anything 
except  the  sober  prophecies  of  a  patriotic  American  bard. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

IS  THE  AMERICAN  FARMER  PROFITED   BY 
PROTECTION  ? 


VER  one  third  our  people  are  engaged  in  agri- 
culture in  its  various  branches.  It  has  been 
a  standard  maxim  in  all  ages  that  the  cultiva- 
tion of  the  soil  lies  at  the  base  of  all  other  in- 
dustry. No  one  will  deny  this  to-day.  It  is  therefore  an 
interest  of  surpassing  importance,  and  its  welfare  should  be 
a  matter  of  concern  to  every  citizen. 

The  farmers  have  never  objected  to  bearing  their  rightful 
portion  of  the  national  burdens.  But  they  do  demand  that 
in  a  government  based  upon  the  idea  of  equality,  the  pres- 
sure of  taxation  shall  bear  alike  upon  all. 

Protection  is  shaped  and  manipulated  in  the  interests  of 
manufacturers ;  but  this  class,  including  in  the  count  all 
employe's  in  these  industries,  and  their  families,  numbers 
less  than  twenty  per  cent  of  our  people.  How  does  it 
affect  our  forty  per  cent  of  agriculturists  ?  The  advocates 
of  the  system  have  seen  that  its  perpetuity  requires  that  it 
shall  be  made  to  appear  advantageous  to  as  many  classes 
of  people  as  possible.  Since  the  farmer  carries  more  votes 
than  any  other  class,  most  strenuous  efforts  have  been 
made  to  show  the  blessings  of  protection  to  the  agricultural 
interests. 


75  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  l6l 

The  one  chief  plea  which  protectionists  have  addressed 
to  farmers  is  known  as  the  "  home  market  argument." 
Stated  in  words  it  is  as  follows :  The  burdens  which  pro- 
tective taxation  imposes  must,  indeed,  be  borne  in  part  by 
agriculture.  But  protection  so  encourages  manufacture 
that  more  people  engage  therein,  who  must  be  supplied 
with  food  by  the  farmers.  This  gives  a  ready  and  profita- 
ble market  at  home  for  the  surplus  products  of  the  farmer, 
who  sells  at  enhanced  prices  and  without  the  expense  of 
foreign  transportation. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  assume  that  this  argument  has 
been  ineffectual.  It  has  existed  for  a  century,  and  during 
all  that  time  it  has  been  persistently  rung  in  the  ears  of  our 
agriculturists.  It  constitutes  the  staple  of  every  protection- 
ist speech  in  the  farming  districts.  Is  it  logically  sound,  or 
is  it  only  a  plausible  fallacy  ? 

It  is  to  be  noted,  first,  that  protection  does  nothing  to 
increase  the  number  of  consumers  of  farm  products.  The 
same  people  will  require  the  same  amount  of  food,  whether 
engaged  in  manufactures,  or  in  some  other  pursuit,  or  in  no 
productive  occupation  at  all.  From  this  point  of  view,  it  is 
not  easy  to  see  how  protection  can  increase  the  absolute 
home  demand  for  farm  products. 

But,  seeing  this,  a  prominent  protectionist  from  Penn- 
sylvania attempted  to  show  in  Congress  that. protection  has 
the  effect  to  increase  foreign  immigration.  If  such  is  really 
the  case,  and  if  the  immigrants  come  to  spend  their  lives 
in  idleness,  the  plea  might  be  a  good  one,  since  more 
mouths  must  be  filled  with  bread  and  meat.  But  they  do 
not  lead  lives  of  idleness.  They  come  to  our  shores  fully 
resolved  to  win  their  way  through  some  productive  employ- 
ment. If  most  of  them  engage  in  manufactures,  their  com- 
petition can  but  reduce  the  wages  of  our  native  operatives, 
while  it  can  add  no  advantage  to  our  farmers,  as  will  be 

ii 


1 62  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

shown.  If  one  half  of  them  become  farmers  or  farm  labor- 
ers, they  reduce  instead  of  increase  the  home  demand  for 
food.  This  is  the  very  thing  they  are  doing.  They  in- 
crease production  in  a  greater  ratio  than  consumption,  thus 
hastening  our  movement  toward  a  general  so-called  over- 
production in  all  branches  of  industry. 

Statistics  utterly  fail  to  support  the  claim  of  protectionists 
in  regard  to  home  markets.  According  to  the  Census  of 
1880  the  wheat  production  of  the  country  was  460  millions 
of  bushels.  We  exported  in  round  numbers  180  millions, 
or  forty  per  cent.  About  30  millions  were  retained  for 
seed,  and  250  millions  were  required  for  home  consump- 
tion. The  agricultural  population  consumed  about  100  mil- 
lions, while  our  manufacturing  population  consumed  about 
45  millions,  which  was  only  one  tenth  of  the  annual  yield, 
and  only  one  fourth  of  the  amount  for  which  we  were  com- 
pelled to  find  a  foreign  market. 

From  another  point  of  view  the  home  market  argument 
is  mere  theory,  and  an  empty  one  at  that.  One  operative, 
attending  a  machine,  will  manufacture  for  five,  but  he  can 
eat  bread  for  himself  alone.  Pennsylvania  eats  her  own 
bread  and  meat ;  but  she  not  only  produces  steel  rails,  iron, 
and  coal  for  herself,  but  for  twenty  other  states  also.  Let 
two  other  states  do  the  same,  and  no  market  for  the  goods 
could  be  found  within  the  area  of  the  Union.  We  already 
make  more  goods  than  our  people  will  use  at  present  prices, 
while  we  yearly  export  increasing  quantities  of  our  grains 
and  meats.  "  Markets  for  agriculture  can  not  be  extended 
at  home  until  markets  are  extended  for  our  manufactures 
abroad." 

Again,  the  fact  is  shown  by  the  official  statistics  that  the 
agricultural  exports  of  the  United  States  in  1860  under  rev- 
enue tariff  were  $295,000,000,  or  seventy-nine  per  cent  of 
the  entire  exports.  In  1870,  after  ten  years  of  protection, 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  163 

the  figure  was  $391,000,000,  or  eighty  per  cent  of  the  whole 
amount.  In  1880,  after  twenty  years  of  protection,  the  ex- 
ports of  farm  products  amounted  to  $686,000,000,  or  eighty- 
three  per  cent  of  the  entire  exports.  Instead,  therefore,  of 
the  ratio  of  home  consumption  increasing,  it  has  really  be- 
come less,  and  a  larger  per  cent  than  ever  before  of  our 
agricultural  products  have  sought  a  foreign  market.  In- 
stead of  securing  a  growing  home  market,  our  farmers  are 
becoming  more  and  more  dependent  on  Liverpool  and 
London. 

But  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  protection  causes  an 
increased  demand  for  the  products  of  the  farm,  this  would 
be  no  sufficient  warrant  for  inferring  that  the  agriculturist 
would  be  thereby  profited.  It  would  lessen  the  amount  ex- 
ported, but  it  would  in  no  way  affect  the  farmer's  income 
from  his  sales.  Farm  produce  is  high  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic  for  no  other  reason  than  that  it  is  high  on  the  other 
side.  It  is  low  here  because  it  is  low  there.  Prices,  like 
the  ocean,  seek  a  level ;  so  that  if  only  five  per  cent  were 
exported,  the  aggregate  value  of  the  crop  would  be  no 
greater  than  if  ninety-five  per  cent  were  sent  abroad.  If 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  New  England  were  a  fac- 
tory operative  it  could  not  raise  the  price  of  wheat  there 
one  cent  a  bushel,  since  the  moment  the  price  advanced 
a  shade  beyond  the  figure  dictated  by  the  English  market, 
the  whole  surplus  product  of  the  Union  would  flow  there, 
like  the  wind,  to  fill  the  vacuum. 

With  the  exception  of  Rhode  Island  and  one  or  two 
others,  all  our  manufacturing  states  produce  the  major  part 
of  the  bread  stuffs  needed  for  their  operatives.  They  do 
not  now  furnish,  and  they  never  have  furnished,  a  consid- 
erable market  for  the  farm  products  of  the  Mississippi 
Valley.  Even  if  they  did  furnish  a  home  market  for  the 
farmer,  they  would  laugh  him  to  scorn  if  he  should  ask 


1 64  S-S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

them  to  pay  for  his  cereals  one  cent  more  than  the  market 
price,  —  the  figure  dictated  by  Liverpool. 

These  are  suggestive  facts.  If  protection  has  any  in- 
fluence at  all  in  increasing  the  demand  for  farm  products, 
or  in  favorably  affecting  their  price,  it  is  quite  too  slight  to 
be  recorded  by  the  barometer  of  statistics  or  detected  by 
common  observation.  The  home  market  idea,  as  addressed 
to  farmers,  is  a  purely  theoretical  affair,  and  has  no  basis  of 
fact. 

It  is  conceded  that  protection  places  a  burden  of  tax- 
ation upon  farmers;  but  the  home  market  argument  as- 
sumes that  they  receive  a  compensating  benefit.  If  this  is 
true,  why  is  it  that  any  proposition,  even  to  reduce  duties, 
throws  these  same  interests  into  a  spasm  of  alarm  ?  If  the 
claim  is  a  good  one,  the  protected  industries  would  derive 
no  benefit,  since  they  would  give  as  much  as  they  receive. 
The  advantages  would  reciprocally  cancel.  Their  hot  op- 
position to  revenue  reform  and  their  hasty  prophecy  of 
ruin  to  themselves  and  to  the  artisan  and  laboring  classes 
when  a  scaling  down  of  duties  is  proposed,  lead  to  the 
inference  with  almost  the  force  of  a  demonstration,  that  they 
are  aware  that  their  system  does  not  give  the  farmers  any 
equivalent  for  the  tribute  which  it  levies  upon  them. 

There  is  another  form  of  argument  which  springs  out  of 
the  home  market  idea.  It  is  this  :  If  protection  be  aban- 
doned, manufacturing  will  be  rendered  unprofitable,  mills 
and  factories  will  be  closed,  operatives  will  be  thrown  out 
of  employment,  millions  of  people  will  rush  into  farming ; 
they  will  double  the  volume  of  agricultural  products,  they 
will  prostrate  prices,  and  thus  plunge  our  farmers  into  ruin. 
No  one  can  be  found  who  has  not  heard  this  plea  a  score 
of  times. 

But  it  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  there  has  never  been  any 
such  movement  in  all  our  history,  through  all  the  tariff 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  165 

fluctuations  of  the  century.  It  is  safe  to  predict  that  there 
never  will  be.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  was  during  the 
five  years  following  the  Jay  Cooke  Panic  of  1873,  under 
the  shelter  of  the  wall  of  high  protection.  Men  do  not 
readily  abandon  a  familiar  pursuit  and  willingly  lose  a  skill 
already  acquired,  by  becoming  novices  in  a  new  vocation. 
Three  things  are  undoubtedly  true  :  i.  If  protection  were 
abandoned  it  would  not  close  our  factories,  since  our  lowest 
tariff  did  not  close  one  fourth  as  many  as  high  protection 
is  now  locking  up.  2.  Even  if  it  did,  the  operatives  would 
not  engage  in  farming,  since  they  never  have  done  so,  and 
they  never  can.  3.  But  if  they  should,  they  could  not  sen- 
sibly affect  the  price  of  farm  products,  since  the  world,  and 
not  the  nation,  is  the  market.  The  idea  thus  adduced  is 
not  an  argument  at  all.  It  is  only  a  fraudulent  threat.  It 
has  the  crack  of  the  slave-driver's  whip. 

If  this  plea  means  anything,  except  a  transparent  attempt 
at  coercion  and  intimidation,  it  is  a  recommendation  to 
farmers  to  buy  off  the  competition  of  manufacturers  rather 
than  to  meet  it  in  an  open  field.  But  it  never  pays  to  buy 
off  competition,  unless  a  monopoly  is  thereby  secured. 
This  the  farmer  can  never  have,  as  he  must  still  compete 
in  his  markets  with  all  the  agriculturists  of  the  world. 
He  must  still  divide  the  gains  thus  purchased  with  the 
Russian  and  the  Hindoo.  Even  if  the  argument  were  a 
good  one,  it  can  never  profit  him  to  bribe  competition. 
But  it  is  not  good.  Though  dressed  in  the  garb  of  plausi- 
bility, examination  shows  it  to  be  clothed  in  the  rags  of 
mere  assertion  and  sophistry. 

Again,  protection  in  theory  and  in  practice  confesses  that 
manufactures  are  so  weak  that  they  must  be  supported  by 
the  stronger  industries,  and  especially  by  agriculture.  But 
if  manufacture  can  not  exist  unless  it  becomes  a  parasite  on 
the  more  vigorous  pursuits,  it  would  be  better  for  farmers 


1 66  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

if  every  shop  and  factory  and  mill  were  closed,  and  all  their 
inmates  were  converted  into  tillers  of  the  soil,  than  to  sup- 
port them  in  a  losing  business.  It  is  infinitely  easier  to 
compete  with  a  pauper  in  an  honest  and  profitable  labor, 
than  to  feed  him,  clothe  him,  and  provide  him  with 
spending  money. 

But  protectionists  have  other  argumentative  approaches 
to  the  self-interest  of  the  farmer.  They  declare  that  all 
industries  are  favored  by  protective  taxation.  They  con- 
cede that  equitable  legislation  would  demand  that  if  the 
farmer  may  be  called  on  to  pay  high  taxes  on  what  he  buys, 
he  should  receive  a  compensating  bonus  on  what  he  sells. 
They  assert  that  he  does  receive  reimbursement. 

By  way  of  specification  we  are  told  that  there  is  an  im- 
port duty  of  ten  cents  a  bushel  on  corn,  oats,  rye,  and 
barley,  fifteen  cents  on  potatoes,  and  twenty  cents  on  wheat ; 
one  cent  a  pound  on  beef  and  pork,  two  cents  on  hams, 
bacon,  and  rice,  ten  cents  on  wool ;  two  dollars  a  ton  on 
hay ;  and  twenty  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  wheat-flour  and 
vegetables.  Do  these  duties  reimburse  the  American 
farmer  for  his  protective  taxation ;  or  are  they  mere  paci- 
fying sops  thrown  to  an  important  class  of  producers,  like 
the  tub  was  thrown  to  the  whale?  Let  us  see. 

We  import  no  wheat,  no  corn,  no  meats,  for  consumption. 
We  surpass  the  world  in  all  kinds  of  farm  products,  and  we 
steadily  export  them  in  enormous  quantities.  No  tariff 
on  imports  therefore  can  touch  them.  Almost  nothing 
that  the  farmer  produces,  except  wool,  can  possibly  be 
protected,  since  the  tide  of  trade  sets  from  our  shores,  not 
toward  them.  To  write  agricultural  products,  therefore,  in 
the  tariff  schedules,  is  either  to  commit  a  blunder  from  ig- 
norance or  else  to  play  a  trick  to  silence  the  reasonable 
demands  of  the  farmer. 

True,  we  do  import  a  little  wheat  from  Manitoba,  but 


fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  167 

only  because  it  has  no  other  outlet  to  market.  Once  in  our 
history,  in  1881,  we  imported  potatoes  and  cabbages  from 
Scotland,  but  only  because  of  a  universal  shortage  in  the 
home  yield,  —  when  our  farmers  had  no  vegetables  for 
market.  We  also  import  barley  from  Canada  and  rice  from 
China,  when  we  have  a  deficient  crop  of  our  own. 

The  English  market  fixes  the  price  of  farm  products  the 
world  over.  What  the  farmer  receives  for  his  grain  is  the 
European  price,  less  the  expenses  incident  to  transportation. 
The  foreign  market  regulates  the  price  not  only  of  what  the 
farmer  sells  abroad,  but  of  what  he  sells  at  home  also.  The 
value  of  cotton  at  Manchester  fixes  the  value  at  Savannah, 
at  Mobile,  and  at  every  village  in  the  South.  The  value  of 
wheat  at  Mark  Lane  determines  the  price  at  every  railroad 
station  in  the  Mississippi  Valley.  Thus  the  farmer  is  forced 
to  sell  his  surplus  to  the  very  people  from  whom  he  is  for- 
bidden to  buy,  and  that,  too,  at  their  own  price.  He  is 
compelled  to  purchase  what  he  requires  in  a  market  made 
artificially  high  for  purposes  of  protection  :  he  is  forced  to 
sell  his  surplus  under  conditions  of  absolute  free  trade 
throughout  the  world. 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  for  the  farmer.  Foreign  nations 
are  placing  a  tax  on  our  exports  in  retaliation  for  our  tax  on 
their  exports.  Since  eighty-five  per  cent  of  our  exports  are 
products  of  the  soil,  this  retaliation  must  be  borne  chiefly 
by  our  farmers.  Germany  has  prohibited  the  importation  of 
American  meats,  ostensibly  in  the  interests  of  public  health, 
but  really  in  retaliation  for  our  prohibitive  taxation  of  Ger- 
man fabrics.  Public  opinion  in  France  has  demanded  and 
obtained  a  tax  of  twenty  cents  a  bushel  on  American  wheat, 
professedly  in  the  interests  of  French  agriculture,  but  really 
as  a  measure  of  retaliation  for  our  interdiction  of  French 
silks,  gloves,  and  laces.  Under  the  cry  of  "  fair  trade,"  an 
effort  is  now  being  made  in  England  to  tax  our  cotton,  with 


1 68  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

the  delusive  plea  of  aiding  its  cultivation  in  the  British  East 
India  colonies.  Already  England  sends  her  refrigerating 
steamers  to  South  America,  and  lays  down  in  London  the 
frozen  carcasses  of  beeves  from  the  Pampas  at  a  lower  price 
than  we  can  furnish  the  cattle  of  Texas  and  New  Mexico. 
Our  steadfast  proscription  of  British  goods  has  led  Eng- 
land to  turn  her  back  upon  our  cereals  also.  British  capi- 
tal, under  government  direction,  is  constructing  railroads 
into  the  interior  of  India,  in  order  that  the  300,000,000 
bushels  of  wheat  which  that  country  annually  sells  may  be 
brought  to  market  at  Mark  Lane.  In  the  last  few  years 
the  price  of  wheat  has  been  lower  in  Liverpool  than  has 
prevailed  at  any  time  for  a  hundred  years.  Enormous 
harvests  in  all  the  fields  of  the  world,  and  not  the  tariff,  may 
be  the  cause  of  the  present  low  price  of  wheat  in  the  com- 
mercial centres ;  but  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that 
this  depression  will  become  permanent,  when  England, 
driven  from  our  markets  by  our  tariff,  shall  have  opened, 
as  she  soon  will,  an  avenue  of  approach  to  the  vast  cereal 
yield  of  India.  These  things  can  not  fail  to  result  in  the 
permanent  injury  of  the  American  farmer.  They  are 
the  legitimate  foreign  offspring  of  our  protective  tariff. 
The  foreign  tariff  does  for  the  farmer's  sales  what  the  home 
tariff  does  for  his  purchases.  He  is  compelled  to  face 
ruinous  cheapness  when  he  sells,  and  artificial  dearness 
when  he  buys. 

It  can  easily  be  shown  that  protection  increases  the  cost 
of  transportation.  Beyond  all  other  men,  our  farmers  are 
interested  in  securing  low  rates  of  freight  for  their  bulky 
products.  Though  the  rates  of  freight  have  fallen  since 
1860  through  the  competition  of  railroads,  the  decrease 
has  not  been  so  marked  as  it  would  have  been  under  low 
tariff.  The  managers  of  railroads  make  no  concealment 
of  the  fact  that  they  reimburse  themselves  for  their  exces- 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  169 

sive  outlay  for  steel  rails  and  other  supplies  by  the  exac- 
tion of  higher  freight  charges  on  all  the  goods  they  carry. 
The  aggregate  of  this  excess  is  something  enormous.  It  is 
of  course  a  direct  levy  upon  the  farmer.  Protection  thus 
enforces  an  export  tax  on  the  production  of  our  farms,  — 
a  thing  odious  to  our  people,  and  forbidden  by  the  Con- 
stitution itself.  No  farmer  will  object  to  paying  the  legiti- 
mate cost  of  transportation  to  his  chosen  market ;  but  that 
it  should  be  largely  increased  by  the  covert  device  of  a  so- 
called  protective  taxation,  is  a  thing  which  goads  and  stings 
beyond  endurance. 

A  protective  tariff  is  a  two-edged  sword,  and  it  cuts  both 
ways  into  the  resources  of  the  farmer.  It  compels  him  to 
pay  too  much  for  what  he  buys  and  to  accept  too  little  for 
what  he  sells.  In  other  words,  it  raises,  under  stress  of 
law,  the  price  of  what  the  manufacturer  sells,  and  unnatu- 
rally cheapens  the  food  which  he  and  his  operatives  buy. 
Protection  is  thus  a  double  disadvantage  to  the  former, 
and  a  double  advantage  to  the  latter.  How  long  will  the 
farmers  patiently  submit  to  this  legal  emptying  of  their 
little  reservoirs  by  two  buckets  at  once? 

But  protectionists  assure  the  farmers  that  all  kinds  of 
manufactured  goods  are  cheaper  under  high  protection  than 
forty  years  ago  under  low  tariff.  This  is  pointed  to  with 
the  air  of  a  conqueror.  The  fact  is  unquestioned  ;  but  the 
inference  therefrom  is  utterly  fallacious.  Protection,  as  we 
have  seen,  could  not  have  been  the  cause  of  low  prices  in 
manufactured  goods.  Fabrics,  metals,  and  other  protected 
articles  are  cheaper  than  half  a  century  ago,  through  im- 
provement in  labor-saving  machinery,  through  skill,  through 
better  facilities  for  transportation,  and  through  foreign  com- 
petition. On  the  other  hand,  the  farmers  are  informed  that 
all  kinds  of  agricultural  products  command  a  better  price 
to-day  than  under  our  low  tariffs.  In  confirmation  of  this 


1 70  JS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

they  are  referred  to  the  "oldest  inhabitant,"  who  can  re- 
member when  bacon  was  three  cents  a  pound,  and  calico 
was  forty  cents  a  yard ;  when  wheat  was  thirty-seven  cents 
a  bushel,  and  salt  was  seven  dollars  a  barrel ;  when  eggs 
were  three  cents  a  dozen,  and  thread  was  twenty  cents  a 
spool.  All  this  is  not  sustained  by  the  facts,  when  applied 
to  the  centres  of  population.  It  is  true  when  applied  to 
distant  and  frontier  settlements.  That  it  should  be  true  at 
all,  is  not  owing  to  protection,  but  rather  to  the  fact  that 
railroads  have  opened  an  outlet  to  the  world  and  reduced 
the  cost  of  transportation,  so  that  the  products  of  the 
western  farms  have  not  been  retained  at  the  place  of  pro- 
duction till  the  glut  of  crops  had  destroyed  their  value. 

But  the  official  statistics  of  the  United  States  warrant  the 
statement  that  the  price  of  farm  products  has  not  increased 
in  the  country's  markets  under  protection.  The  exact 
opposite  is  the  fact.  The  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statis- 
tics for  March,  1884,  contains  a  table  showing  the  average 
price  of  farm  products  in  New  York,  for  every  year  from 
1846  to  1883.  According  to  this,  the  average  price  of 
wheat  was  $1.59  under  the  Walker  Tariff,  and  $1.48  under 
the  Morrill ;  corn  was  $.77  as  against  $.66  ;  flour  was  $5.83 
as  against  $4.69 ;  wool  was  $.32  in  the  first  period,  and 
$.28  in  the  second;  timothy  seed  was  $3.12  and  $2.62 
To  heighten  the  suggestiveness  of  this  comparison,  let  it 
be  remembered  that  these  low  values  under  protection  were 
from  1861  to  1879  expressed  in  a  depreciated  paper  cur- 
rency. A  specie  valuation  would  show  to  the  farmer  a  still 
wider  margin  in  favor  of  free  trade  and  against  protection. 

But  what  is  the  amount  of  the  farmer's  tariff  bill  ?  How 
much  does  he  pay  in  addition  to  the  natural  price?  Ac- 
cording to  the  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  the  aver- 
age rate  of  duty  collected  on  imported  dutiable  goods  is 
about  forty-three  and  one  half  per  cent.  Now,  since  these 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  171 

goods  were  imported,  it  is  evident  that  the  whole  amount 
of  the  duty  was  added  to  their  price  when  sold,  otherwise 
they  could  not  have  been  sold  except  at  a  loss,  which 
would  have  put  an  immediate  stop  to  importation.  It  is 
also  evident  that  the  entire  volume  of  our  domestic  prod- 
ucts of  the  same  kind  were  sold  at  the  same  price,  else 
they  would  have  been  preferred  to  the  foreign  goods,  and 
the  latter  would  have  been  left  without  a  market. 

It  is  not  possible  that  any  official  record  should  state  in 
figures  the  aggregate  sum  that  farmers  annually  contribute 
under  the  stress  of  protective  taxation.  But  the  official 
data,  coupled  with  the  above  facts,  open  the  way  to  a 
reasonable  estimate.  According  to  the  census  of  1880, 
the  manufactured  products  of  the  year  amounted  to 
$5,369,579,191.  Not  more  than  ten  per  cent  of  these 
were  exported,  leaving  $4,832,621,272  to  be  consumed  at 
home.  Let  it  be  assumed  that  eighty  per  cent  of  these 
were  dutiable  goods  and  twenty  per  cent  on  the  free  list, 
which  was  not  far  from  the  truth.  The  dutiable  then  were 
$3,866,097,017.  The  value  of  dutiable  merchandise  im- 
ported for  consumption  into  the  United  States  in  1880  was 
$419,506,091.  Hence  the  amount  of  dutiable  goods 
consumed  in  the  United  States  during  the  year  was 
$4,285,603,108.  Now,  since  this  figure  was  on  an  aver- 
age 43^  per  cent  in  excess  of  the  free-trade  price,  the 
amount  extorted  from  our  consumers  by  the  tariff  was 
$1,299,120,000.  The  American  farmers  and  their  families 
consumed  one  third  of  these  goods.  Their  tariff  bill  there- 
fore was  $433,040,000.  This  is  indeed  a  crude  approxi- 
mation ;  but  it  is  far  too  real  to  be  thought  a  mere  man  of 
straw.  How  much  of  this  vast  treasure  was  a  legitimate 
assessment  to  meet  the  needs  of  revenue,  and  how  much  a 
premeditated  bonus  to  manufacturers,  may  be  left  for  indi- 
vidual judgment  to  determine.  It  may,  however,  be  stated 


1/2  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

as  a  fact  that  during  the  last  ten  years  the  average  amount 
collected  on  imports  has  been  about  $200,000,000.  If 
the  farmers  could  be  rightly  called  on  for  one  third  of  this, 
we  have  a  balance  of  $366,374,000.  This  appears  to  be 
the  amount  extorted  from  the  patient  American  farmers  in 
excess  of  the  needs  of  government  extravagantly  admin- 
istered. Is  it  not  time  that  the  American  farmer  should 
decree  with  emphasis,  not  to  say  explosive  force,  born  of 
long  sufferance  and  patient  endurance  of  wrong,  that  such 
an  outrage  shall  no  longer  exist? 

For  over  half  a  century  protected  manufacturers,  —  a 
mere  fraction  of  our  population,  —  aided  by  political  allies, 
have  mystified  the  farmers,  sometimes  by  rank  assertion, 
sometimes  by  sophistical  pleas,  and  thus  have  gained  their 
consent  to  pay  for  their  supplies  prices  artificially  enhanced, 
and  to  sell  their  produce  at  prices  artificially  depressed,  in 
order  to  enable  the  said  manufacturers  to  carry  on  branches 
of  industry  which,  by  their  own  showing,  would  otherwise 
be  wholly  unprofitable  and  impossible.  It  remains  to  be 
seen  how  much  longer  this  large  class  will  consent  to 
be  thus  ground  between  these  two  millstones  of  wasteful 
taxation. 

In  two  ways  have  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  made 
the  protective  system  possible.  First,  by  their  votes.  It 
could  not  exist  a  month  did  it  not  receive  either  the  active 
support  or  the  tacit  toleration  of  agriculture.  Second,  by 
sending  their  mighty  surplus  to  pay  for  our  imports  from 
Europe.  Without  this  as  a  prop,  the  fabric  of  protection 
would  have  crumbled  long  ago  from  its  own  weight.  In 
times  of  financial  stringency  and  disaster  the  country  has 
grown  into  prosperity  again  chiefly  through  the  productive- 
ness of  agriculture.  Do  princely  manufacturers  acknowl- 
edge their  obligation  to  the  plain  agriculturist?  Should 
they  not  cease  to  look  upon  him  as  the  proper  subject  for 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  173 

a  legal  plucking?  Should  they  not  credit  the  very  exist- 
ence of  their  system  of  taxation  to  the  great  fact  that  so 
wonderful  are  the  capacities  of  our  soil  that  our  farmers 
are  not  broken  down  under  the  burdens  of  taxation  which 
they  bear,  though  they  foot  one  third  the  bill  of  legitimate 
government  revenue,  and  at  the  same  time  pass  over  a 
magnificent  gratuity  to  our  bounty-loving  manufacturers? 
Will  the  tillers  of  the  soil  continue  to  listen  to  the  sophis- 
tries of  protection  when  it  comes  as  a  pauper  to  their 
houses,  which  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  it  has  been  robbing 
under  legal  forms?  Will  they  continue  to  tolerate  a  fiscal 
policy  which  covertly  robs  one  class  for  the  enrichment  of 
another,  and  whose  only  language  is  that  of  the  horse- 
leech's daughters,  "  Give  !  give  !  give  !  "  ? 


CHAPTER    XV. 

THE    RELATION   OF    THE    LABORING    MAN  TO    THE 
PROTECTIVE  TARIFF. 

zfABOR  is  the  producing  agency  in  all  wealth.  It 
lies  at  the  base  of  all  industry.  The  manufac- 
turing system  on  both  sides  of  the  ocean  has 
shown  that  labor  may  be  advantageously  em- 
ployed in  large  factories,  constructed  for  the  purpose,  and 
filled  with  costly  machinery  and  skilful  operatives.  In 
every  part  of  the  country  not  exclusively  agricultural  these 
operatives  constitute  an  important  element  of  popula- 
tion ;  and  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire  what  is  the  relation  of 
these  employes  and  of  all  laboring  men  to  the  protective 
system  of  taxation. 

Nothing  is  more  familiar  in  the  tariff  controversy  than 
the  plea  of  protective  journals  and  speakers,  —  that  a  high 
tariff  is  needed  in  the  interests  of  American  labor. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  protectionists  —  whether  in 
debate,  on  the  stump,  writing  editorials,  or  penning  "  plat- 
form palaver"  —  do  not  so  often  urge  protection  as  being 
a  benefit  to  manufacturers,  as  they  demand  it  because  it  is 
necessary  to  secure  prosperity  to  the  laborer.  How  far  are 
these  disinterested  professions  well  based,  and  to  what 
extent  are  these  supposed  benefits  real  ? 


7S  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  175 

i.  It  is  argued  that  these  benefits  come  to  the  laborers 
chiefly  through  the  increased  wages  which  protection  se- 
cures to  them.  This  subject  has  been  already  discussed 
in  the  chapter  on  Wages ;  and  it  is  there  shown  that  a 
high  tariff  reduces  wages  both  in  theory  and  in  fact  below 
the  standard  prevailing  under  a  low  tariff  or  absolute  free 
trade. 

Labor  enters  the  market  as  any  other  commodity,  and 
the  price  is  governed  by  the  great  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand. It  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  business  that  men 
should  pay  two  dollars  for  a  day's  labor  when  they  can 
command  it  for  one.  Sure  it  is,  that  no  manufacturer  has 
yet  been  found  who  will  thus  voluntarily  reduce  his  profits 
for  the  sake  of  realizing  his  theory.  He  employs  his 
laborers  at  the  lowest  market  price,  wholly  without  any 
regard  to  how  much  protection  his  industry  may  have  re- 
ceived on  the  tariff  schedule.  In  this  matter  of  wages  pro- 
tectionists usually  begin,  proceed,  and  end  with  blank  asser- 
tion. They  do  not  attempt  to  show  that  in  point  of  fact  the 
workman  ever  has  received,  or  under  the  laws  of  business 
ever  can  receive,  better  wages  on  account  of  protection. 
The  facts  and  figures  are  all  the  other  way. 

Until  some  protectionist  writer  or  orator  shall  be  able  to 
show  by  something  more  convincing  than  assertion  that 
protection  raises  the  wages  of  labor,  the  statement  will  con- 
tinue to  be  believed  by  many  that  this  professed  solicitude 
for  the  laboring  man  is  really  to  capture  his  vote  in  support 
of  their  system,  and  to  divert  public  attention  from  the  fact 
that  it  enriches  specified  classes  at  public  expense.  Until 
highly  protected  capitalists  can  show  how  protection  does, 
or  how  it  can,  raise  the  rewards  of  labor,  they  must  still 
expect  themselves  to  be  styled,  by  a  rather  intemperate 
metaphor,  "law-protected  vampires,  sucking  blood  from 
every  consumer  of  their  products." 


176  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

2.  Again,  the  high  prices  which  protection  causes  bear 
with  peculiar  weight  upon  the  poor  man  and  the  laborer. 
The  tax  does  not  fall  equitably  upon  people  according  to 
their  ability  to  pay,  but  in  the  ratio  of  their  purchases  and 
consumption.      The    poor   man   pays   relatively   a   much 
higher  tax  than  the  rich  man.     The  laborer  spends  almost 
his  entire  income  on  the  necessaries  of  life ;  but  the  mil- 
lionnaire  spends  but  a  small  portion  of  his.     It  follows  that, 
though  the  latter  may  have  spent  a  greater  sum  in  dollars, 
he  has  made  a  much  smaller  sacrifice  for  the  support  of  the 
system   than   the   former.     John   Bright,  during   the  free- 
trade  agitation  in  England,  showed  that  while  the  rich  man 
paid  only  one  per  cent  of  his  income  in  protective  taxes, 
the  poor  man  paid,  in  most  cases,  twenty  per  cent  of  his 
wages.     This  state  of  affairs  could  easily  be  shown  to  exist 
to-day  in  every  humble  home  in  the  United  States.     It  is  a 
necessary   operation   of  the   protective   machinery.     The 
system  can  be  justly  arraigned  for  oppressing  the  poor. 

Carefully  compiled  statistics  show  that  ninety-five  per 
cent  of  our  people  earn  less  than  $500  a  year.  If  all  of 
this  be  spent  in  dutiable  goods,  forty-two  per  cent  of  it  will 
go  as  the  tax  imposed  by  protection.  It  is  the  aim  of  all 
just  taxation  that  it  shall  bear  with  equal  weight  upon  all. 
This  can  never  be  said  of  indirect  taxes,  and  especially 
protective  ones.  No  other  class  of  our  people  are  so  highly 
taxed  as  the  very  ones  that  should  bear  the  least  burden,  — 
the  poor,  the  laborer,  and  the  man  of  modest  means. 

3.  This   is   not  a  simple   tax.     It   is,  like   the  tax   on 
raw  material,  a  compound  and  cumulative  one.     The  im- 
porter pays  the  tax  and  passes  the  custom-house  with  his 
goods.     When  he  sells  to  the  jobber  he  adds  his  per  cent 
to   make  his  gross  price.     When  the  jobber  sells  to  the 
wholesaler  he  adds  his  per  cent  to  what  the  goods  cost  him. 
So  does  the  wholesaler.     So  does  the  retailer.     Thus  when 


AS1  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  177 

the  goods  reach  the  consumer,  the  tax  has  swelled,  like 
compound  interest,  much  beyond  its  original  volume.  All 
this  accumulated  burden  the  final  purchaser  must  bear 
alone.  It  is  one  of  the  peculiar  iniquities  of  protection 
that  it  visits  the  heaviest  assessments  upon  those  who  are 
able  to  bear  only  the  lightest.  It  is  utterly  out  of  harmony 
with  that  theory  of  equality  which  lies  at  the  base  of  the 
Republic. 

4.  In  another  way  the  wealthy  have  been  favored  at  the 
expense  of  the  poor.     For  several  years  we  had  an  income- 
tax  in  connection  with  the  Morrill  Tariff.     This  being  upon 
persons  of  good  incomes  only,  in  some  degree  "  evened 
up  "  the  difference  in  the  burdens  borne  by  the  rich  and 
the  poor.     But  this  tax  was  removed   years   ago   at   the 
clamors  of  the  wealthy,  and  the  heaviest  part  of  the  burden 
was  thrown  back  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  poor  man  and 
the  laborer. 

5.  There  is  yet  another  way  in  which  protection  operates 
inequitably  to  the  oppression  of  the  poor.     It  is  a  marked 
feature  of  our  present  tariff  that  the  lowest  taxes  are  placed 
upon  articles  of  luxury  and  splendor,  and  the  highest  upon 
necessaries  and  those  made  of  the  commoner  and  cheaper 
materials.     Thus   the   millionnaire  pays  but  ten  per  cent 
on  his  diamonds  and  all  kinds  of  precious  stones  and  on 
statuary.     But  the  laborer  pays  seventy-four  per  cent   on 
his  carpets,  sixty-eight  per  cent  on  his  woollen  hose  and 
woollen  hat,  sixty-five  per  cent  on  woollen  blankets,  sixty 
per  cent  on  thread,  and  eighty  per  cent  on  window  glass. 
It  is  true  that  he,  like  "  the  curled  darling  of  society  "  may 
buy  his  ottar  of  roses,  oil  of  bergamot,  cardamom  seeds, 
and    most    kinds    of   perfumery   at   absolutely   free-trade 
prices  !     What  satirical  incongruities  exist  in  that   inscru- 
table  document,  a  tariff  schedule  enacted  for  protective 
purposes  ! 


1 78  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

6.  Instead  of  increasing  opportunities  for  labor,  protec- 
tion makes  employment  uncertain.     Under  the  stimulus  of 
bounties  too  many  mills  are  started.     Soon  a  larger  volume 
of  goods  is  produced  than  the  markets  will  absorb.     Then 
prices  fall.    Then  wages  are  reduced.     Some   mills  stop 
and  the  rest  run  on  short  time.     Hands  are  discharged, 
and  strikes,  riots,  lock-outs,  and  labor  troubles  ensue. 

This  is  not  an  imaginary  picture.  It  is  being  realized 
every  day  of  the  year.  In  his  last  State  Message  President 
Arthur,  himself  a  reputed  protectionist,  said  :  "  We  have  a 
system  of  productive  establishments  more  than  sufficient  to 
supply  our  own  demands."  For  the  rest,  glance  over  any 
newspaper.  At  such  times  goods  are  cheap  as  compared 
with  prosperous  times ;  but  the  laboring  man,  being  out  of 
employment,  has  nothing  to  buy  them  with.  Steadiness  of 
employment,  with  established  wages,  is  better  for  every 
man  than  full  wages  at  one  time,  low  wages  at  another,  half 
time  at  another,  and  no  employment  at  all  at  another. 

7.  But  as  has  been  shown,  protection  cuts  off  the  foreign 
market  for  our  manufactured  goods.    This  misfortune  falls 
more  heavily  upon  the  workingman  than  any  other  class. 
When  the  home  market  will  take  no  more  goods,  the  pro- 
prietors  can   protect   themselves   against  loss   by   cutting 
wages,  by  half  time,  or  by  closing  the  mill.     One  of  these 
three  things  they  are  constantly  doing.     Thus  they  shift 
upon  the  operative  a  burden  which  does  not  belong  to  him, 
but  which  he  must  patiently  endure,  since  he  can  neither 
throw  it  upon  others  nor  curtail  his  expenses  to  meet  it. 
The  English  operatives  of  to-day  have  found  out  that  the 
world  for  a  market,  with  free  trade,  is  a  hundred  per  cent 
better  for  them  than  an  insular  market,  with  protection. 

8.  Again,  one  of  the  fundamental  purposes  of  protection 
is  to  reduce  or  prevent  importation  of  foreign  goods.     To 
the  extent  to  which  it  really  does  this,  it  curtails  the  market 


AS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  179 

of  foreign  goods  and  throws-  foreign  operatives  out  of  em- 
ployment. Many  of  these  wage-workers  then  take  refuge 
in  this  country  to  compete  with  our  owtv  workmen.  This 
has  been  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  fall  of  wages  under 
our  high  tariff. 

9.  Again,  laborers,  like  farmers,  can  have  no  protection. 
All  our  traditions  declare  that  this  government  shall  be  a 
refuge  for  immigrants  from  all  nations.  It  is  our  theory 
that  all  law-abiding  and  industrious  immigrants  help  to 
develop  the  country  and  add  to  the  national  wealth.  The 
phrase,  "  protection  of  American  labor,"  is  a  very  popular 
one  with  protectionists.  It  would  convey  the  impression 
that  in  some  way  not  quite  obvious,  labor  is  protected  by 
the  tariff.  But  the  truth  is,  that  we  have  absolute  free  trade 
in  labor,  all  mankind  being  welcome  to  come  and  engage 
in  any  productive  employment.  We  forbid  the  importa- 
tion of  European  goods,  but  allow  the  free  importation  of 
European  laborers.  Is  there  any  reason  that  we  should 
have  perfect  free  trade  in  labor,  and  yet  not  have  free  trade 
in  the  products  of  labor?  Is  not  the  cry,  "  Protection  of 
American  labor !  "  a  fallacy  so  ridiculous  as  to  become  a 
satire  ? 

Not  only  is  the  native  workman  left  without  protection 
against  foreign  rivals  who  come  to  our  shores,  but  their 
rivalry  is  often  encouraged  by  the  very  men  who  shout 
"  Protection  of  labor  ! "  In  recent  years  it  has  become  a 
frequent  occurrence  that  foreign  laborers  are  imported 
under  contract  at  low  figures,  with  the  deliberate  purpose 
of  giving  them  employment  by  displacing  native  workmen. 
Thus  Hungarians,  Italians,  Belgians,  Chinese,  and  others 
have  been  imported  in  herds  at  starving  wages  by  the  very 
men  who  ring  all  the  changes  upon  "protection  of  our 
labor."  All  are  acquainted  with  one  of  the  first  of  these 
importations, — when  in  1871  a  large  force  of  Chinese 


180  JS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

were  taken  to  North  Adams,  Mass.,  and  employed  at  low 
wages  to  the  permanent  displacement  of  the  white  shoe- 
makers, who  had  been  forced  by  reduction  of  wages  into  a 
strike. 

Let  one  example  suffice  :  It  was  testified  before  the 
Tariff  Commission  (see  page  1,039)  lnat  m  1878  the 
masters  of  the  glass-works  at  New  Albany,  Indiana,  hear- 
ing that  there  were  idle  glass-workers  in  Belgium,  sent  an 
agent  thither,  who  made  a  contract  for  their  labor  at  fifty 
cents  a  box,  —  one  third  the  price  paid  to  the  native  em- 
ployes. "  Three  hundred  of  these  people  were  brought 
over  at  the  expense  of  the  proprietors,  and  landed  at  New 
Albany ;  and  without  warning,  the  American  workers  were 
given  the  alternative  of  a  discharge  or  sixty  cents  a  box. 
They  indignantly  refused,  and  the  Belgians  were  put  to  work 
in  their  places."  Is  this  what  is  styled  "protection  of 
American  labor  "  ? 

Among  the  much  iterated  phrases  of  protectionist  jour- 
nals and  speakers,  none  is  of  more  frequent  recurrence  than 
"pauper  labor."  This  means  that  the  labor  of  foreign 
workmen  is  the  toil  of  paupers,  since  their  wages  and  their 
scale  of  comforts  are  assumed  (in  many  cases  falsely)  to 
be  lower  than  those  of  our  native  workmen.  It  means 
that  the  importation  of  the  products  of  this  "pauper  labor" 
would  be  disastrous  both  to  our  manufacturers  and  our 
operatives.  But  it  is  chiefly  a  mere  rallying  cry  to  terrorize 
the  unthinking,  and  as  a  whip  to  lash  back  into  the  party 
harness  those  who  are  about  to  run  away. 

But  the  American  farm-laborer,  as  was  shown,  does  com- 
pete with  the  "  pauper  labor  "  of  India  and  Russia  in  the 
markets  of  Mark  Lane  and  Liverpool.  The  American 
operative  does  compete  with  the  "  pauper  labor "  of  all 
Europe  when  transatlantic  laborers  are  free  to  flock  hither, 
or  are  imported  like  cattle  by  protected  manufacturers. 


SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  l8l 

The  protectionist,  on  his  own  showing,  entices  the  plow- 
man from  the  farm  or  the  immigrant  from  Castle  Garden, 
sends  him  into  an  iron-mill  or  thrusts  him  down  into  a 
mine  at  the  lowest  wages  ever  paid  in  the  United  States, 
and  then  rushes  to  Washington,  asking  with  indignant 
sorrow  whether  an  American  citizen  is  to  be  forced  to  an 
equality  with  Russian  felons  ! 

These  things  show  that  the  manufacturers  who  are  usu- 
ally men  of  wealth,  and  hence  need  protection  the  least, 
are  guarded  by  legislation  in  all  directions,  while  our  work- 
men, who  need  it  the  most,  are  left  unprotected  at  every 
point.  They  show  that  the  solicitude  of  protectionists  for 
the  workman,  is  either  a  profession  born  of  ignorance,  or 
else  a  deliberate  attempt  at  deception.  They  show  that  no 
class  of  our  people  are  more  forgetful  of  the  interests  of 
our  wage-workers  than  the  very  persons  in  whose  interest 
protection  was  adopted,  and  who  are  so  persistently  raising 
the  misleading  cry  of  protection  to  domestic  labor. 

Of  course,  protection  can  not  continue  to  have  a  legal 
existence  in  this  country  without  the  approval  of  the  farm- 
ers and  the  laborers.  For  this  reason  the  most  industrious 
efforts  have  always  been  made,  either  to  convince  these 
classes  that  protection  is  both  righteous  and  beneficial,  or 
to  hoodwink  them  into  a  blind  adoption  of  its  doctrines,  or 
to  distract  their  attention  to  other  issues.  Though  they 
are  an  essential  factor  on  election-day,  their  judgment  is 
not  invoked.  The  voice  of  the  laborer  is  never  heard  in 
the  lobby.  He  is  quite  a  forgotten  party  in  the  scramble 
for  self  and  for  greed.  Though  laborers  are  the  economic 
equals  of  capitalists,  their  contribution  to  production  being 
no  less  important  than  money,  their  interests  have  been 
systematically  ignored  by  the  makers  of  tariff  schedules. 

There  is  but  little  wonder  that  workingmen  who  look 
beneath  the  mere  surface  of  things,  are  losing  faith  in 


1 82  IS  PROTECTION-  A  BENEFIT? 

protection,  and  are  rebelling  against  the  Protective  System, 
as  our  great-grandfathers  did  against  the  Colonial  System. 
They  are  rapidly  learning  to  do  their  own  thinking,  not 
accepting  opinions  ready  made  for  their  adoption  by  our 
theory-builders  and  metropolitan  journals.  They  are  see- 
ing that  under  protection  manufacturers  become  more 
wealthy  while  they  become  more  impoverished.  They 
are  seeing  that  protection  is  a  misnomer  as  applied  to  them, 
that  no  restriction  is  placed  on  the  immigration  of  Euro- 
pean workmen,  and  that  English  mechanics  are  returning 
to  their  old  home  because  the  larger  purchasing  power  of 
wages  there  more  than  counterbalances  the  higher  wages 
here.  As  a  people,  we  are  seeing  more  clearly  from  year 
to  year  that  the  abolition  of  all  monopoly,  whether  na- 
tional, state,  municipal,  corporate,  or  individual,  is  a  ne- 
cessary and  should  be  an  early  step  toward  that  "  ideal 
government  in  which  an  injury  to  one  is  the  concern 
of  all." 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

HOW  FAR   DOES   PROTECTION   BENEFIT  THE 
FAVORED   INDUSTRIES  ? 

ROTECTION  does  benefit  the  favored  producer. 
To  assert  that  manufacturers  are  not  profited 
by  the  system,  would  be  to  assert  the  incredible 
thought  that  for  whole  generations  they  have 
advocated  and  secured  the  adoption  of  a  scheme  of  tax- 
ation which  was  all  the  time  operating  to  their  injury.  The 
immediate  benefits  of  protection  upon  those  favored  by  it 
are  so  evident  that  it  may  easily  be  shown  to  be  one  of  the 
chief  causes  of  the  growing  disproportion  of  wealth  among 
the  people  of  this  country,  —  the  increase  of  millionaires 
and  paupers. 

But  under  all  our  tariffs,  and  especially  the  Morrill,  in- 
fluences have  been  at  work  which,  in  all  cases,  have  greatly 
reduced  the  profit  of  manufacture,  and  in  many  cases  have 
forced  it  below  what  would  have  been  realized  under  ab- 
solute free  trade  or  a  revenue  tariff.  Let  us  look  at  some 
of  these  influences.  It  is  to  be  noted,  as  we  proceed,  that 
not  one  of  them  lessens  or  tends  to  lessen  the  burdens  of 
the  people.  They  simply  nullify  protection  to  its  benefi- 
ciaries without  removing  any  of  the  objectionable  features 
of  the  system  heretofore  adduced. 


1 84  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

1.  Protection  utterly  fails,  as  was  shown,  to  protect  the 
manufacturer  against  foreign  importation,  though  this  is  one 
of  the  chief  purposes  of  the  system.    If  a  tariff  were  placed 
so  high  in  relation  to  home  prices  as  to  be  prohibitory,  the 
Government  would  receive  no  revenue.    No  one,  therefore, 
has  asked  for  such  a  thing,  though  on  some  articles  it  has 
been  craftily  and  covertly  obtained.     Protection  asks  only 
that  producers  in  this  country  be  placed,  as  to  prices,  on 
terms  of  equality  with  the  foreign  producer.     As  has  been 
shown,  when  the  price  is  raised  to  this  height  the  foreign 
goods  may  still   pay  the  duty  and  enter  our  markets   as 
largely  and  as  easily  as  they  could  under  absolute  free  trade. 
This  is  the  very  thing  that  foreign  goods  have  been  doing 
for  many  a  year,  and  the  tariff  has  no  tendency  to  keep 
them  out.     The  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  for  any 
year  shows  that  importation  of  the  very  classes  of  goods 
named  in  our  highest  schedules  is  increasing  from  year  to 
year  more  rapidly  than  our  population.     It  would  be  easy 
to  mention  many  striking  examples  of  this,  to  show  what  a 
loose  grip  we  have  upon  our  own  market. 

2.  While  not   protecting   the   home  market,  protection 
cuts  off  our  manufacturers  from  the  foreign  one.     This  has 
elsewhere  been  shown.    Only  about  five  per  cent  of  our  ex- 
ports are  protected  commodities,  and  only  twelve  per  cent 
are  the  products  of  manufacture,  the  rest  being  petroleum 
and  the  yields  of  agriculture.     No  protected  manufacturer 
lays  any  claim  to  the  foreign  market.     In  fact,  the  very 
theory  of  protection  is  based  upon  our  confessed  inability  to 
enter  it.    The  result  is  an  overproduction  of  our  mills  and 
factories,  which,  in  turn,  is  the  chief  cause  of  strikes,  lock- 
outs, short  hours,  reduction  in  wages,  and  depression  of 
trade. 

Forced  and  bankrupt  sales  of  goods  do  not  relieve  our 
congested  markets,  since  the  home  supply  is  not  thus  re- 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  185 

duced.  The  goods  truly  change  owners,  but  they  go  to 
the  very  quarters  relied  upon  for  future  sales.  The  British 
manufacturer  relieves  any  temporary  glut  of  products  by 
sending  his  surplus  as  far  from  his  island  as  possible.  But 
we,  not  having  access  to  outside  markets,  have  no  allevia- 
tion but  to  stop  production. 

In  the  light  of  all  our  experience  in  these  things  it  would 
seem  to  be  as  plain  as  the  figures  on  a  blackboard,  that,  by 
debarring  us  from  other  markets,  protection  not  only  in- 
flicts starvation  wages  and  diminished  employment  upon 
operatives,  but  is  of  very  dubious  advantage  to  manufac- 
turers themselves. 

3.  Even  within  what  is  left  of  the  home  market,  the  pro- 
fit of  the  manufacturer  is  reduced  by  the  tariff  on  raw 
material.  The  only  way  to  offset  this  is  by  higher  rates  on 
the  finished  goods.  Thus  a  tariff  on  wool  means  a  yet 
higher  tax  on  woollen  fabrics ;  that,  in  turn,  means  a  still 
higher  rate  on  clothing.  Thus  protection  is  a  system  of 
accumulated  burdens  to  the  people  in  order  that  the  favored 
ones  may  get  their  bounty. 

No  one  realizes  this  influence  half  so  well  as  protected 
manufacturers  themselves,  and  it  constitutes,  in  their  opin- 
ion, a  strong  objection  to  our  scheme  of  national  taxa- 
tion. All  readers  of  the  Report  of  the  Tariff  Commission 
must  have  been  impressed  with  the  continual  complaints 
made  by  heavily  protected  manufacturers  against  this  very 
thing.  In  reading  their  elaborate  and  carefully  prepared 
papers  before  the  Commission,  many  of  them  pointedly  de- 
clared that  the  antecedent  taxes  which  they  were  obliged 
to  pay  on  their  materials  reduced  their  profits  to  a  mini- 
mum, in  spite  of  their  protection.  Some  of  them  said  it 
would  be  better  for  them  to  have  no  protection  at  all,  than 
to  be  thus  handicapped ;  and  others  said  that  this  tax,  and 
not  high  wages,  is  what  obliges  them  to  sell  at  a  high  price. 


1 86  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

As  an  example,  J.  Schoenhof,  a  large  woollen  manufac- 
turer of  New  York,  used  the  following  language  :  "  Manu- 
facturers of  finished  goods  are  not  protected.  They  are 
worse  than  protected.  Equal  protection  means  protection 
to  no  one.  You  can  not  protect  the  raw-material  man  and 
the  maker  of  finished  goods  at  the  same  time.  High-priced 
material  means  ruin  to  the  manufacturer."  Though  confess- 
ing that  his  industry  was  protected  by  a  tax  of  one  hundred 
per  cent,  Mr.  Schoenhof  deliberately  stated  that  it  would 
be  better  for  him  to  enter  the  market  on  a  plane  of  absolute 
free  trade.  James  Means,  the  large  manufacturer  of  boots 
and  shoes,  Boston,  has  issued  a  circular  to  his  operatives 
showing  how  protection  is  harmful  both  to  his  interest  and 
theirs.  Many  further  examples  could  be  given.  These 
complaints  are  well  founded,  and  no  assertion  is  more  true 
in  the  whole  doctrine  of  free  exchange. 

Much  that  has  been  conferred  by  one  section  of  the 
tariff  has  been  taken  away  by  another.  The  manufacturer 
has  purchased  the  right  to  shear  his  countrymen  like  sheep 
by  conceding  to  his  fellow- shearers  the  right  for  them  to 
shear  him.  By  cutting  off  the  supply  of  cheap  material, 
protection  has  rendered  it  as  impossible  for  our  manufac- 
turers to  make  cheap  goods  as  it  was  for  the  Israelites  to 
make  bricks  without  straw. 

4.  Many  manufacturing  industries  can  not  have  any 
protection,  and  yet  they  are  compelled  to  pay  a  protective 
tax  on  the  materials  used  by  them.  To  illustrate  :  No 
agricultural  implement  is  mentioned  in  any  tariff  schedule, 
and  its  maker  could  get  no  protection  even  if  it  were,  since 
our  farmers  do  not  buy  the  foreign  article.  Yet  the  maker 
pays  a  duty  on  the  lumber,  iron,  steel,  paint,  used  by 
him.  A  large  number  of  our  industries  are  thus  taxed 
without  return  benefits,  —  as  house-building,  furniture-mak- 
ing, smithing  of  all  kinds,  founders,  and  the  makers  of  all 


7S  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  187 

kinds  of  machines.  It  is  not  strange  that  important  classes 
of  makers  even  of  material  products  (the  only  kind  the 
tariff  attempts  to  protect)  should  clamor,  as  some  of  them 
are  clamoring,  for  a  lowering  of  the  tariff  bars. 

5.  Our  tax  on  raw  material  imported  has  had  a  tendency 
to  reject  crude  products  from  our  markets  and  make  them 
cheaper  in  foreign  lands.     Thus  protection  here  confers  a 
benefit  upon  the  European  manufacturer,  enabling  him  to 
compete  in  our  market  still  more  successfully  than  he  could 
even  under  free  trade. 

6.  The  excessive  profits  which  protection  gives  to  manu- 
factures are  likely  soon  to  be  absorbed  into  the  general 
condition  of  the  business   and  in  large  degree  disappear. 
That  is  to  say,  an  excessive  margin  of  profits  induces  ex- 
travagant expenditures,  wasteful  processes,  and  the  use  of 
imperfect   machinery.     Only  the   man  who  is  confronted 
with  hot  competition  and  small  profits  is  kept  fully  abreast 
of  the  times.     Prosperity  makes  the  possessor  prodigal  and 
negligent.     Secure  a  man  against   competition,  and  you 
remove  the  incentive  to  progress.    Under  these  circumstan- 
ces, only  a  portion  of  the  tax  appears  as  profits,  though  the 
burden  bears  with  undiminished  weight  upon  all  who  con- 
sume.    This  is  another  way  in  which  protection  nullifies 
itself. 

7.  By  raising  the  price  of  protected  articles  the  system 
injures  the  manufacturer,  since  it  reduces  the  demand  for 
his  goods  in  his  own  market.     Cheapness  always  stimulates 
consumption ;  and  it  is  a  mistake  to  assume  that  the  home 
demand  is  sated  when  prices  are  high.     A  fall  in  the  price 
of  goods,  within  certain  limits,  quickens  sales  in  greater  ra- 
tio than  the  fall.     "  Small  profits  and  quick  sales,"  is  a  wise 
business  maxim.     Even  if  the  whole  of  the  tax  were  abso- 
lute profit  to  the  producer,  as  it  is  loss  to  the  consumer,  a 
true  business  acuteness  would  lead  him  voluntarily  to  relin- 


I  88  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

quish  a  part  of  it,  in  order  that  he  might  swell  his  sales  in 
still  larger  ratio,  and  thus  increase  the  volume  of  his  profits. 

8.  There  is  to-day  a  keener  competition  between  our  own 
manufacturers  than  they  ever  had  with  those  of  England, 
— keener  than  they  would  now  have  under  even  absolute  free 
trade.     The  factories  of  the  East  fear  those  of  the  West, 
those  of  the  South  fear  those  of  the  North, — far  more  than 
they  fear  those  of  Europe.     Combinations  and  "  trusts  "  can 
not  last.     They  are  but  makeshifts.    Nothing  will  finally  an- 
swer the  purpose  of  our  great  producers  but  a  clearing  of  the 
race-course  for  the  freest  competition  with  all  the  world. 

9.  From  the  position  assumed  by  protectionists,  their 
system,  while  entailing  loss  upon  the  masses,  is  without 
gain  to  the  manufacturers.     It  is  the  theory  that  the  pro- 
tection should  be  equal  to  the  advantages  enjoyed  by  the 
foreign  manufacturer  in  excess  of  the  domestic  producer. 
The  idea  of  a  legal  bonus  is  rejected,  and  they  strenuously 
insist  that  the  tariff-tax  does  nothing  more  than  to  place  our 
manufacturers  on  an  even  footing  with  their  foreign  compet- 
itors.    If  this  is  correct,  it  is  evident  that  the  tax  paid  by 
consumers  is  without  any  profit  to  the  manufacturer,  serving 
merely  to  make  his  business  possible.     The  loss  is  as  abso- 
lute as  though  a  highwayman  should  rob  a  traveller,  and  then 
throw  the  money  into  the  sea.     We  may  take  "  judgment 
by  confession  "  of  protectionists  themselves  that  the  system 
is  a  positive  evil  to  one  class  and  no  benefit  to  the  other. 

If,  however,  this  claim  is  untrue,  as  would  be  inferred 
from  the  outcry  for  government  recognition,  they  then  be- 
come the  beneficiaries  of  national  taxation,  and  are  receiv- 
ing a  pure  gratuity  from  the  earnings  of  the  people,  for 
which  they  do  not  have  even  a  theoretical  justification  to 
adduce.  Which  horn  of  this  dilemma  will  they  take  ? 

By  clamoring  for  protection  the  manufacturer  tacitly 
admits,  and  often  confesses  in  words,  that  his  industry  is  a 


AS1  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  189 

weakling  that  can  not  stand  alone.  Thus  he  is  voted  a  gra- 
tuity from  the  pockets  of  the  people.  But  in  some  manner 
it  turns  to  ashes  in  his  grasp.  It  is  his  apple  of  Sodom. 
Nothing  is  more  patent  to  every-day  observers  than  that 
when  hard  times  strike  the  country  the  protected  industries 
are  the  first  to  succumb.  They  suddenly  collapse  like  a 
house  of  cards,  or  tumble  one  at  a  time  like  a  row  of 
bricks.  One  of  the  most  striking  paradoxes  of  our  day  is 
the  fact  that  it  is  seriously  argued  that  protection  is  the 
cause  of  our  prosperity,  while  our  most  highly  encouraged 
manufacturers  are  nearly  all  the  time  claiming  to  be  in  dis- 
tress. While  our  bounty-loving  industries  are  demanding 
more  protection,  and  protesting  that  bankruptcy  is  at  the 
door  unless  they  obtain  it,  our  untariffed  industries  go 
straight  ahead,  paying  the  highest  of  wages  and  sending 
their  products  to  all  parts  of  the  world. 

The  theory  adopted  by  protectionists  is  that  it  should 
cover  every  industry.  This  is  equitable.  If  one  may 
claim  it,  surely  every  other  one  may  do  the  same.  But  this 
necessarily  reduces  protection  to  a  nullity.  In  proportion 
as  tariffs  are  broad,  or  cover  every  industry,  they  defeat 
themselves.  By  such  a  course  our  industries  are  like  the 
old  man  and  his  five  sons,  who  traded  coats  all  day  among 
themselves.  At  night  each  one  had  the  same  garment  as 
in  the  morning.  Or,  to  change  the  illustration,  the  attempt 
we  have  been  making  for  so  long  to  protect  all  classes  is  as 
absurd  as  it  would  be  for  the  county  treasurer  to  pay  to 
every  man  a  rebate  of  forty  per  cent  on  his  taxes. 

Again,  if  protection  were  really  a  protector  of  one  nation 
against  others,  all  nations  would  adopt  it.  Thus  each  one 
would  secure  the  maximum  of  benefit  to  itself.  But  this 
would  involve  an  absurdity.  Each  one  would  grow  rich  by 
robbing  all  the  rest.  Instead  of  proving  of  advantage  to 
any,  it  would  prove  to  be  an  injury  to  all.  The  universal 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

adoption  of  protection  by  the  nations  could  but  tend  to 
universal  impoverishment,  besides  being  the  cause  of  com- 
mercial hostility,  jealousies,  and  war. 

Manufacturers  are  themselves  beginning  to  see  and  con- 
fess that  they  are  the  victims  of  a  mistaken  policy.  One 
evidence  of  this  is  the  statement  of  the  men  themselves. 
Another  is  the  fact  that  some  of  our  heaviest  manufacturing 
firms  have  established  branch  houses  in  England,  in  order 
to  be  enabled  to  compete  in  the  foreign  market. 

Another  evidence  is  the  fact  that  the  men  who  are  most 
dissatisfied  with  the  provisions  of  any  tariff  are  the  very 
ones  whose  industries  have  been  most  carefully  looked  after. 
Among  the  several  hundred  persons  who  appeared  before 
the  Tariff  Commission  the  reader  will  scarcely  find  one 
who  declared  himself  satisfied  in  all  respects  with  the  pro- 
visions the  existing  tariff  made  for  his  welfare. 

There  is  no  class  of  our  people  who  see  so  clearly  as  our 
manufacturers,  that  our  home-market  is  over-supplied,  that 
it  is  invaded  by  foreigners,  and  that  distant  markets  can  not 
be  reached.  Experience  far  from  sweet  has  taught  some  of 
them  that  while  half  measures  may  injure  them,  relief  will 
come  when  they  can  participate  in  open  competition  with 
those  free-trade  countries  which  are  rapidly  monopolizing 
the  exchanges  of  the  world.  Our  shielded  industries  have 
good  reason  to  cry  out,  —  and  some  of  them  are  crying 
out,  —  to  be  delivered  from  their  friends.  From  this  point 
of  view  it  seems  not  improbable  that  the  abolition  of  pro- 
tection will,  at  no  distant  day,  be  demanded  by  manufac- 
turers themselves. 

Thus  the  logic  of  events  is  slowly  and  painfully  giving  our 
people  a  lesson.  The  march  of  facts  is  teaching  the  truth 
of  science,  that  all  legal  interference  with  the  natural  laws 
of  business  can  but  work  open  injury  to  the  many,  while 
it  offers  but  a  delusive  promise  of  advantage  to  the  few. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 


A  GLANCE  AT  SOME  OF  OUR  PROTECTED 
INDUSTRIES. 

OME  of  the  influences  and  effects  of  protec- 
tion are  perhaps  most  clearly  shown  by  a  study 
of  the  system  in  its  relation  to  specified  indus- 
tries. Let  us  now  see,  in  the  light  of  official 
statistics  and  other  facts,  what  has  been  its  record  during 
twenty-five  years  in  some  of  our  leading  branches  of 
manufacture. 

IRON  AND  STEEL. 

Iron  is  a  staple  material  of  this  age.  It  is  necessary  to 
civilization.  It  ought  to  be  made  as  cheap  as  possible  to 
all  our  people.  Instead  of  this,  its  price  has  been  artifici- 
ally raised  by  an  import  tax  on  iron  in  all  its  forms.  It 
would  seem  that  "  geographical  protection  "  would  be  pro- 
tection enough.  But  the  expense  of  loading  the  iron  on 
ships,  transporting  it  three  thousand  miles  to  our  ports 
and  unloading  it  here,  was  not  deemed  to  give  a  sufficient 
encouragement  to  our  capitalists.  Hence  Congress  was 
importuned  for  a  legal  bonus  in  addition. 

On  pig  iron  the  duty  for  years  has  been  $7  a  ton.  Under 
this  stimulus  blast  furnaces  sprung  up  all  over  the  country. 
At  first  the  duty  was  added  to  the  foreign  price,  and  the 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

owners  rapidly  grew  rich.  But  their  capacity  of  production 
so  far  exceeded  the  requirements  of  the  country,  that  dur- 
ing the  depression  following  the  panic  of  1873,  prices  de- 
clined, and  over  half  the  furnaces  were  closed  and  the 
employe's  turned  adrift.  The  artificial  stimulation  of  this 
industry  was  thus  unfortunate  for  itself  and  damaging  to 
the  country. 

On  the  sudden  return  of  activity  in  the  iron  trade  in 
1879,  a^  tn's  was  changed.  The  duty  of  $7  a  ton  was  again 
added  to  the  price  of  the  foreign  article  on  a  production  of 
2,301,215  tons  in  that  year.  The  importation  was  87,576 
tons.  Thus,  during  1879,  the  treasury  of  the  United  States 
received  a  revenue  of  $613,032  from  pig  iron,  and  the  treas- 
ury of  the  Pennsylvania  iron  maker  a  bounty  of  $16,108,505, 
a  ratio  of  $i  for  the  government  to  $26  for  the  protected 
manufacturer.  This  startling  disproportion  is  not  an  un- 
usual occurrence. 

A  fact  in  our  tariff  on  wood  screws  serves  to  illus- 
trate the  operation  of  protection  in  a  large  number  of  other 
branches  of  manufacture.  The  duty  is  from  six  to  twelve 
cents  a  pound,  which  is  so  high  as  to  be  entirely  prohibitive, 
the  article  not  being  imported  at  all.  The  result  has  been 
to  give  a  bounty  to  the  owners  of  our  two  establishments 
making  screws,  at  the  expense  of  all  the  people. 

The  manufacture  of  Bessemer  steel  rails  for  railroads  fur- 
nishes some  suggestive  facts.  Previous  to  1870,  the  pro- 
tective duty  was  forty-five  per  cent  ad  valorem.  In  that 
year  a  combination  of  the  steel  companies,  foreseeing  that 
the  decline  in  the  price  of  rails  would  be  permanent,  and 
had  not  then  reached  its  limit,  demanded  of  Congress  a 
specific  tariff.  At  that  particular  time  the  ad  valorem  duty 
amounted  to  $28  a  ton ;  hence  that  figure  was  fixed  as  the 
specific  tax.  It  continued  so  till  1883.  As  the  price  con- 
tinued to  fall,  the  new  tax  gave  the  manufacturers  a  much 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  193 

higher  rate  of  profit  than  the  ad  valorem  had  given.  Dur- 
ing several  of  those  thirteen  years  the  difference  between 
the  domestic  and  the  English  price  was  the  full  amount  of 
the  duty.  The  average  difference  was  $24.44.  Prices  were 
kept  at  high  tide,  and  our  producers  had  a  monopoly.  It 
was  a  brilliant  realization  of  the  aims  of  protection ;  but  it 
is  observable  that  protectionists  never  "  point  with  pride  " 
to  this  record. 

During  the  eleven  years  between  1870  and  1881,  there 
were  laid  in  the  United  States  4,279,831  tons  of  steel  rails, 
of  which  3,660,134  tons  were  of  domestic,  and  619,697  of 
foreign  manufacture.  Since  the  price  was  raised  by  the 
tariff  an  average  of  $24.44,  it  follows  that  during  that  time 
the  Government  received  a  revenue  of  $17,351,516,  while 
the  home  manufacturers  received  a  gratuity  amounting  to 
$105,385,079,  a  sum  six  times  as  large  as  the  revenue. 
Thus  protection  accomplished  its  purpose  of  securing  as 
much  bounty  as  possible,  while  reducing  the  revenue  to  a 
minimum. 

True,  we  have  had  a  surplus  of  revenue  for  several  years. 
Instead  of  this  being  a  contradiction  of  the  above  deduc- 
tion, it  does  but  emphasize  most  strongly  the  evils  of  the 
protective  system.  How  heavy  must  be  the  burdens  of  the 
people  when  they  are  compelled  by  law  to  pay  six  dollars  in 
bounty  for  every  one  dollar  they  get  into  the  treasury,  which, 
nevertheless,  is  so  full  as  to  receive  yearly  $100,000,000 
in  excess  of  our  extravagant  expenditures  !  It  would  baffle 
the  ingenuity  of  man  to  devise  a  more  wasteful  scheme  of 
national  revenue  than  that  which  protection  contemplates 
and  enforces. 

WOOL   AND   WOOLLENS. 

The  history  of  our  experience  under  our  tariff  legislation 
on  wool  is  a  dismal  recital.  It  has  been  unfortunate  for  all 
parties. 

13 


194  fs  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

That  our  growers  of  wool  have  not  been  benefited  is 
shown  by  two  facts  :  i.  Their  product  has  not  commanded 
so  high  a  price  on  an  average  as  it  did  under  the  revenue 
tariff  of  1857.  In  fact,  for  years  in  succession,  wool  has 
brought  lower  prices  than  have  been  realized  since  it  ceased 
to  be  a  branch  of  household  manufacture.  2.  The  number 
of  sheep  owned  has  steadily  decreased,  except  in  the  great 
grazing  States,  as  Texas  and  New  Mexico.  The  European 
and  Australian  wool-growers  have  not  prostrated,  and  never 
can  prostrate,  the  business  of  the  American  wool-grower. 
But  the  exact  adaptation  of  our  great  grazing  areas  and  the 
ranches  in  the  West  to  the  sheep-raising  industry,  has  taken 
it  out  of  the  hands  of  farmers  in  Vermont,  Pennsylvania, 
and  Ohio,  in  spite  of  all  that  protective  legislation  could 
do  to  prevent  it. 

That  the  woollen  manufacturers  have  not  had  a  bonanza 
at  their  command,  is  shown  by  two  facts :  i .  According  to 
the  census  returns  of  1870  and  1880,  their  business  shows 
a  smaller  per  cent  of  profit  than  any  other  of  the  leading 
branches  of  domestic  industry.  2.  For  the  last  fifteen 
years  more  of  their  mills  have  been  standing  idle  or  have 
been  converted  to  other  uses  than  is  the  case  in  any  other 
of  our  protected  manufactures.  Though  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century  we  have  been  protecting  the  woollen  industry  in  all 
its  forms,  it  was  never  in  so  depressed  a  condition  as  it  has 
been  in  during  nearly  all  of  those  years ;  and  there  probably 
never  was  so  large  a  ratio  of  our  people  who  are  clothed  in 
woollen  goods  of  foreign  manufacture  as  at  the  present 
time. 

That  the  woollen  operatives  have  not  profited  is  also 
shown  by  two  facts  :  i.  According  to  the  census  of  1860, 
the  average  annual  wages  paid  in  the  woollen  mills  of  the 
country  was  $359.26,  while  in  1880  it  was  $298.67,  —  a 
reduction  of  seventeen  per  cent.  2.  While  receiving  di- 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  195 

minished  wages,  they  have  been  compelled  to  pay  on  all 
their  purchases  of  woollen  fabric  an  increased  price  of 
from  thirty  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  per  cent,  as  a  direct 
result  of  the  high  tariff  on  that  article,  not  to  mention  their 
other  purchases. 

That  the  American  people  as  consumers  of  woollen 
goods  have  not  been  benefited,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
under  the  Morrill  Tariff  they  pay  more  for  their  cloths,  car- 
pets, and  blankets,  than  the  people  of  any  other  nation  in 
Europe  or  America.  If  this  were  not  true,  importation 
must  have  ceased,  which  has  not  been  the  case.  But  so 
nearly  has  the  domestic  price  been  kept  at  the  prohibitive 
point,  that  in  some  kinds  of  goods  the  imports  have  been 
insignificant.  Hence  the  treasury  gets  the  smallest  possible 
amount  of  revenue,  and  the  people  pay  the  greatest  possi- 
ble amount  of  bounty  to  the  manufacturer.  Thus  in  1881 
the  treasury  received,  as  import  tax  on  woollen  blankets,  a 
meagre  $2,000,  while  the  people  paid,  in  consequence  of 
the  artificial  increase  in  price,  probably  a  thousand  times 
that  sum  in  the  same  year. 

The  tariff  on  wool  and  woollens  has  done  nothing  to 
render  us  commercially  independent  of  foreign  nations. 
The  importation  of  wools  in  1880  was  128,000,000  pounds, 
while  we  exported  only  191,551.  We  imported  $33,613,000 
in  manufactured  woollen  goods,  and  exported  to  the  value 
of  only  $216,576.  Thus  we  imported  six  hundred  and 
sixty-six  times  as  much  raw  material,  and  one  hundred  and 
fifty-five  times  as  much  finished  product,  as  we  exported. 
And  yet  the  air  is  full  of  much  talk  about  the  tariff  secur- 
ing us  the  home  market,  and  about  the  restriction  of  foreign 
competition. 

The  high  tariff  is  in  part  responsible  for  a  fraudulent 
feature  in  the  woollen  manufacture,  —  the  use  of  shoddy 
and  spurious  fibres.  Owing  in  large  degree  to  the  duty  on 


196  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

raw  wool,  we  have  learned  to  mix  shoddy  and  cotton  with 
wool  to  an  extent  and  with  a  degree  of  skill  that  can  not  be 
surpassed.  In  the  census  year  our  manufacturers  of  woollen 
goods  used,  according  to  their  own  figures,  169,000,000 
pounds  of  wool,  55,000,000  pounds  of  shoddy,  and 
81,000,000  pounds  of  cotton,  —  that  is,  three  fourths  of 
a  pound  of  false  fibre  with  every  pound  of  genuine.  This 
gives  color  to  the  charge  that  in  all  articles  susceptible 
of  adulteration  the  quality  becomes  poorer  as  the  tariff  on 
material  becomes  higher.  Thus  a  premium  is  put  upon  dis- 
honesty, and  the  business  of  honorable  manufacture  is  at  a 
discount.  As  one  remedy  for  this,  pull  down  the  barriers. 

COTTON. 

When  Columbus  saw  the  natives  at  San  Salvador,  the 
women  were  clothed  in  coats  of  cotton.  From  that  day  to 
this,  the  growth  and  manufacture  of  the  fibre  has  been  an 
industry  in  America.  It  has  never  owed  its  existence  to 
legislation.  In  1816  the  power-looms  of  Mr.  Lowell,  at 
Waltham,  succeeded  so  well  that  the  proprietors  stated  to 
Congress  that  they  were  making  a  satisfactory  profit  and 
did  not  need  any  further  encouragement.  It  is  a  historical 
fact  that  the  protection  of  cotton  manufacture  was  adopted 
in  response  to  the  demands  of  those  who  were  shiftless  in 
their  processes,  and  those  who  adhered  to  the  use  of 
inferior  machinery  or  hand-labor.  The  growth  of  the  in- 
dustry has  been  such,  under  all  changes  of  duty,  as  to 
demonstrate  its  ability  to  stand  alone  without  legislative  aid. 
In  1824  Webster  said,  "  I  consider  the  cotton  manufacture 
not  only  to  have  reached  but  to  have  passed  the  point  of 
competition." 

Cotton  is  the  typical  product  of  the  United  States.  With 
the  cotton  fields  at  our  doors,  with  the  best  machinery  in 


SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  197 

our  mills,  and  with  intelligent  operatives  within  call,  there 
has  never  been  the  remotest  danger  from  disastrous  foreign 
competition.  As  to  wages,  our  operatives  in  cotton  are 
paid,  as  has  been  shown,  even  less  than  the  average  of 
English  workmen.  These  easy  circumstances  have  taken 
away  the  spur  to  our  enterprise.  With  a  home  market 
naturally  ours,  we  have  been  content  therewith,  and  have 
done  little  to  enter  foreign  ones  in  a  branch  of  manufacture 
in  which  we  ought  to  surpass  the  world.  It  is  true  we  do 
export  some  cotton  goods,  but  not  so  much  as  we  did 
twenty-five  years  ago,  while  we  import  more  than  we  did 
then.  Our  greatest  exportation  in  any  one  year  was  less 
than  150,000,000  yards,  while  year  by  year  England  ex- 
ports thirty- three  times  as  much.  In  1880  we  congratulated 
ourselves  on  an  exportation  of  raw  cotton  to  the  amount 
of  $239,000,000 ;  but  during  the  same  year  Great  Britain 
exported  finished  cotton  goods  to  the  value  of  $377,000,000. 
The  major  part  of  this  might  have  been  ours,  had  we  not 
closed  foreign  markets  against  ourselves.  After  seventy 
years  of  "  fostering  our  native  industries,"  we  are  convert- 
ing only  one  fourth  of  our  cotton  yield  into  the  products  of 
our  looms,  while  we  export  the  other  three  fourths  to  the 
mills  of  Manchester  and  the  continent. 

How  shall  our  country  secure  what  is  our  natural  and 
rightful  heritage,  —  a  participation  in  this  great  volume  of 
business?  Not  by  the  device  misnamed  protection.  We 
have  been  continuously  trying  it  at  a  steady  loss  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  The  whole  of  our  tariff  legislation 
respecting  cotton,  in  recent  years,  has  proceeded  upon  the 
strange  mistake  that  it  would  make  us  industrially  inde- 
pendent of  other  nations,  when  in  fact  we  have  always  been 
so.  This  was  a  disastrous  blunder.  It  has  hindered  our 
industrial  expansion  more  than  figures  or  words  can  tell. 
It  has  beaten  us  back  from  markets  which  we  might  have 


IQ8  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

entered  and  made  our  own  long  ago.  Cotton  may  yet  be 
made  one  of  the  kings  of  the  factory,  as  it  has  long  been 
the  king  on  the  plantation. 

SUGAR. 

The  tax  on  imported  sugar  is  now  (1888)  three  and  a 
half  cents  a  pound.  In  1882  it  was  two  and  a  half  cents. 
In  that  year  the  people  of  the  United  States  consumed 
2,185,000,000  pounds  of  sugar  of  which  ninety-five  per 
cent  was  imported,  and  five  per  cent  produced  in  the  States. 
The  whole  amount  consumed  was  raised  in  price  artificially  by 
the  entire  amount  of  the  duty,  else  not  a  pound  could  have 
been  imported.  Thus  our  people  paid  $54,625,000  under 
stress  of  law  in  addition  to  what  they  would  have  paid  under 
absolute  free  trade.  If  this  were  levied  for  purposes  of 
revenue,  it  would  be  a  very  successful  tariff,  since  nineteen 
twentieths  of  it  goes  into  the  national  treasury ;  but  as  a 
part  of  a  protective  system  it  is  most  wasteful  and  unwise, 
since  it  compels  the  people  to  pay  a  tax  of  $20,  not  to 
secure  revenue,  but  in  order  to  get  $i  into  the  pockets  of 
the  Louisiana  sugar-makers.  We  paid  in  one  year  a  tax  of 
fifty-four  millions  for  the  privilege  of  preventing  Cuba  and 
the  other  Antilles  from  selling  to  us  at  low  figures  the  sugar 
we  must  have,  and  can  not  make.  This  is  twice  as  much 
as  we  should  have  to  pay  Spain  for  the  island  of  Cuba  in  fee- 
simple  !  Such  legislation  is  nothing  short  of  an  outrage 
upon  a  patient  people.  Must  sixty  million  Americans  cut 
themselves  off  from  the  benefits  of  sub-tropical  cheapness 
in  an  article  of  daily  necessity  in  every  house,  in  order  that 
a  gratuity  may  be  passed  over  to  a  few  men  in  one  of  our 
States,  who  have  converted  the  finest  cotton-lands  on  the 
planet  into  third-rate  sugar  plantations?  It  appears  that 
they  must. 


75"  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  199 

If  this  were  taken  by  the  open  demand  of  a  direct  tax, 
nothing  could  withstand  the  storm  which  would  arise ;  but 
when  it  is  spirited  away  through  the  expensive  and  waste- 
ful mechanism  of  a  protective  duty,  we  placidly  congratulate 
ourselves  that  we  are  helping  to  develop  the  industries  of 
the  country.  Like  the  foolish  ostrich,  which  hides  its  head 
and  thinks  itself  safe,  we  pay  millions  of  disguised  and  use- 
less taxes  and  think  we  are  growing  richer.  If  our  sugar- 
makers  must  receive  their  gratuity,  it  would  be  nineteen 
times  as  cheap  to  pay  them  from  the  treasury  direct. 

We  have  a  treaty  of  reciprocity  with  the  Sandwich 
Islands,  by  which  their  sugar  is  admitted  into  the  United 
States  duty  free.  The  most  of  this  importation — about 
70,000,000  pounds  a  year — goes  to  the  Pacific  States,  and 
is  there  refined  and  consumed.  As  a  result,  sugar  is 
cheaper  in  San  Francisco  than  in  Boston.  If  the  question 
of  revenue  is  to  be  ignored,  or  if  it  is  a  matter  of  secondary 
importance  (as  protection  asserts),  reciprocity  in  sugar  is  a 
public  advantage.  Is  it  not  about  time  that  we  should 
adopt  reciprocal  free  trade  with  Cuba  in  the  interests  of 
our  eastern  and  central  sections?  If  revenue  is  to  take 
care  of  itself,  let  the  statesmen  at  Washington  pull  down  the 
barriers,  and  cease  to  nurse  a  sickly  industry  which  a  few 
men  have  been  induced  to  pursue  through  the  seduction  of 
a  government  bounty. 

LUMBER. 

We  have  long  had  for  protective  purposes  a  tax  on  for- 
eign lumber  of  $2  per  thousand  feet.  When  it  is  remem- 
bered that  we  are  a  lumber-exporting  country,  such  a  tax 
becomes  an  absurdity  on  its  face.  But  the  exportation  is 
confined  to  the  Pacific,  Gulf,  and  South  Atlantic  States. 
We  import  lumber  from  our  Canadian  frontier,  and  hence 
the  duty  is  laid  to  encourage  the  lumbermen  of  Michigan, 


20O  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota.  The  tariff,  therefore,  is  purely 
local  in  its  supposed  benefits,  and  is  confined  to  only  a  few 
individuals  in  that  section,  while  it  adds  to  the  expense  of 
all  who  own  or  live  in  a  house  made  wholly  or  in  part  of 
wood.  The  bounty  has  averaged  about  $50,000,000  a 
year. 

But  the  chief  iniquity  of  the  tax  is  not  the  money  in- 
volved. It  was  laid  for  no  other  purpose,  as  protectionists 
declare,  than  to  encourage  the  production  of  lumber,  the 
stripping  of  our  pine  lands  and  forest  areas  as  quickly  as 
possible.  While,  therefore,  many  of  the  States  were  main- 
taining forestry  associations ;  while  the  school- children  in 
many  States  were  observing  annually  an  "Arbor  Day" 
for  the  planting  and  protection  of  trees ;  while  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  itself  has  on  its  statute  books  the 
Timber  Culture  Act,  providing  for  the  donation  of  a  farm 
to  every  one  who  will  plant  and  protect  upon  the  public 
domain  a  grove  of  forest  trees,  —  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  is  doing  all  that  legislation  can  do  to  promote 
the  destruction  of  our  timbered  areas.  To  offer  a  bounty 
to  persons  planting  trees  upon  the  public  lands,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  pay  a  premium  to  those  who  destroy  our  tim- 
ber, is  such  a  solemn  legislative  farce  as  to  strike  with  awe 
both  gods  and  men. 

This  is  all  in  the  face  of  the  well-known  facts  that  the 
destruction  of  forests  reduces  rainfall  and  causes  droughts 
at  one  season  and  leads  to  devastating  freshets  at  another, 
and  that  it  destroys  the  equability  of  the  temperature,  induc- 
ing excessive  heat  in  summer  and  killing  cold  in  winter. 
Thus  by  the  short-sighted  policy  of  voting,  under  the  name 
of  protection,  a  bounty  to  our  lumbermen  which  they  have 
never  needed,  Congress  for  years  past  has  been  doing  its 
utmost,  in  effect,  to  reduce  us  to  the  desolate  condition 
of  oriental  lands,  —  Palmyra,  Persepolis,  Baalbec,  —  cities 


JS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  2OI 

whose  territories  were  once  fruitful  with  cereals,  the  vine, 
and  olives ;  or  to  the  condition  of  the  valley  of  the  Eu- 
phrates, where  once  was  the  Garden  of  Eden,  but  which  is 
now,  through  the  denudation  of  its  forest  areas,  a  "  parched 
and  calcined  desolation."  Can  Congress  have  forgotten,  like 
the  monks  of  Dunwald  in  the  legends  of  the  Rhine,  that  we 
can  not  raise  a  crop  of  oaks  as  quickly  as  a  crop  of  corn  ? 
If  Government  must  act  the  paternal  part  at  all,  how  infi- 
nitely wiser  would  it  be  to  pay  a  bounty  on  the  importation 
of  lumber,  so  as  to  preserve  our  heritage  of  forest  for  the 
use  of  those  who  shall  come  after  us  !  Let  all  nations 
have  free  access  to  our  markets,  in  order  that  they  may 
furnish  us  the  lumber  with  which  we  are  now  supplying  our- 
selves at  an  absolutely  fatal  cost. 

COPPER. 

Copper  is  a  product  of  Mexico,  Chili,  and  some  other 
foreign  countries.  Of  the  50,655,140  pounds  produced  in 
the  United  States  in  1880,  the  State  of  Michigan  yielded 
45,830,262  pounds,  of  which  one  company,  the  Calumet 
and  Hecla  Copper  Company,  produced  one  half.  Under 
the  Morrill  Tariff  the  tax  was  originally  five  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  but  it  was  afterward  raised  to  five  cents  a  pound, 
which  was  so  far  prohibitory  that  in  1877  the  imports 
amounted  to  only  $30,  from  which  the  treasury  received  a 
revenue  of  $11.50.  Thus  the  copper  producers  have  mo- 
nopolized the  home  market.  Under  the  revision  of  1883  the 
duty  is  four  cents  a  pound.  This  rate  is  maintained  for  the 
benefit  of  a  few  men  on  the  south  shore  of  Lake  Superior. 

Copper  is  a  necessary  constituent  of  brass,  which  is  used 
in  every  home  in  the  land.  The  duty  bears  heavily  upon 
the  manufacture  of  copper  and  brass  goods,  prevents  their 
exportation,  and  raises  their  price  to  all  our  people.  The 


2O2  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

tax  of  three  cents  a  pound  on  imported  copper  ore  has 
closed  all  but  two  of  the  smelting  furnaces  of  the  Atlantic 
coast,  its  effect  being  to  prostrate  one  industry  while  it 
stimulates  and  subsidizes  another. 

It  was  witnessed  before  the  Tariff  Commission  1  that  our 
copper  producers,  in  order  to  protect  the  market  and  main- 
tain the  price  at  19  cents  a  pound,  sold  6,000,000  pounds 
of  copper  delivered  free  of  freight  at  Havre,  France,  at  16 
cents.  It  is  inexcusable  that  men,  under  cover  of  a  pro- 
tective tariff,  should  ship  their  goods,  freight  free,  four 
thousand  miles,  and  sell  them  at  prices  fifteen  per  cent 
lower  than  they  will  sell  to  their  own  countrymen.  This 
case  has  numerous  parallels.  For  years  the  salt  com- 
panies of  Michigan  and  New  York  have  been  selling  their 
product,  freight  paid,  in  Canada  for  a  less  price  than  the 
American  citizen  could  buy  it  in  Saginaw  and  Syracuse. 
Such  are  the  thanks  of  a  protected  industry  to  the  people 
who  by  their  votes  have  protected  it ! 

Such  a  fact  shows  that  the  tax  has  been  wholly  unneces- 
sary by  the  confession  of  the  copper  producers  themselves. 
The  same  thing  is  also  shown  by  three  facts  :  first,  that 
the  Michigan  copper  is  in  the  form  of  ingots,  which  need 
no  smelting,  while  the  foreign  copper  is  in  the  form  of  ores, 
both  carbonates  and  sulphides,  which  makes  an  expensive 
process  of  reduction  a  necessity ;  second,  that  our  mines 
are  nearly  all  above  water  and  of  easy  access,  while  the 
foreign  ones  are  deep  and  expensive  to  open ;  third,  that 
our  mines,  being  on  the  border  of  a  great  lake,  are  accessible 
to  water  navigation  to  all  parts  of  the  world,  while  most  of 
the  foreign  ones  are  far  inland  or  in  mountainous  regions. 
In  many  branches  of  our  manufactures,  even  if  protection 
is  necessary,  the  "  geographical  protection  "  is  quite  suffi- 
cient without  the  legislative. 

1  See  Report,  p.  1392. 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  203 

Under  the  circumstances,  it  is  not  strange  that  prosperity 
has  attended  our  copper  industry.  It  is  not  a  source  of 
wonder  that  80,000  shares  of  watered  stock  in  one  of  our 
copper  companies,  which  cost  the  owners  but  $15,  were 
soon  selling  at  $175,  and  producing  quarterly  dividends  of 
$5  a  share,  —  a  return  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-three  per 
cent  annually. 

NICKEL. 

In  1869  Mr.  Adams,  of  Pennsylvania,  discovered  a  pro- 
cess by  which  nickel-plating  could  be  done  cheaply.  Like 
the  discovery  of  the  Bessemer  process  in  steel,  this  gave  a 
great  impetus  to  the  demand  for  nickel  and  to  the  produc- 
tion of  it.  In  order  to  protect  this  new  industry  the  duty 
was  almost  immediately  raised  to  thirty  cents  a  pound, 
which  rate  was  continued  till  1883.  For  whose  benefit? 
For  the  benefit  of  a  single  mine-owner  at  Lancaster,  Penn- 
sylvania. The  duty  was,  and  still  is,  so  high  as  to  be  en- 
tirely prohibitive ;  and  nine  tenths  of  it  having  been  added 
to  the  foreign  price  to  make  the  American  price,  it  has 
yielded  enormous  profits  to  the  producer,  there  being  but 
one  large  smelter  in  America.  As  in  so  many  other  of  our 
protected  industries,  we  have  for  years  not  only  been  sub- 
sidizing a  single  firm  at  the  expense  of  all  our  people  who 
use  nickel-plate,  but  by  that  act  we  have  so  raised  the  price 
of  nickel  to  our  manufacturers  of  plated  wares,  that  they 
can  not  compete  for  the  foreign  market.  The  largest  con- 
sumer of  nickel  in  this  country  —  the  Meriden  Britannia 
Company  —  has  been  forced  to  establish  a  factory  in 
Canada,  in  order  to  sell  their  goods  in  Europe.  This  is  an 
example  of  the  way  in  which  the  short-sighted  policy  of 
protection  restricts  a  large  manufacture  by  stimulating  a 
small  one. 


204  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT! 

GLASS. 

Glass  is  one  of  our  oldest  manufactures,  having  been  in  a 
prosperous  state  before  the  Revolution.  Under  the  Morrill 
Tariff  the  duty  on  window  glass  has  averaged  about  seventy 
per  cent.  Importation  has  not  ceased ;  and,  therefore, 
every  person  who  owns  or  rents  a  house  in  the  United 
States  has  been  paying  the  glass-makers  all  the  subsidy  the 
law  demanded.  This  is  the  nearest  thing  to  taxing  sun- 
light itself. 

For  years  the  duty  on  plate  glass  has  averaged  one  hun- 
dred and  three  per  cent,  and,  as  French  and  German  plate 
has  been  all  the  time  imported,  there  is  no  escape  from  the 
conclusion  that  a  glass  worth  $50  has  been  costing  in  our 
market  a  trifle  over  $100. 

It  was  witnessed  before  the  Tariff  Commission  by  N.  T. 
De  Pauw,  manager  of  the  glass-works  of  W.  C.  De  Pauw  of 
New  Albany,  Indiana,1  that  that  firm  manufactures  two 
thirds  of  all  the  plate  glass  made  in  the  United  States,  that 
they  have  a  capital  of  $1,300,000  invested,  and  that  up  to 
1879  a  l°ss  °f  $600,000  had  been  incurred.  The  inquiry 
arises  in  every  thoughtful  mind,  Is  there  any  solid  business 
prudence  in  trying  to  legislate  into  prosperity  an  industry 
which,  while  receiving  a  bonus  of  one  hundred  per  cent  of 
its  production,  had  nevertheless  sunk  in  the  unprofitable 
venture  nearly  one  half  of  its  capital?  Has  it  really 
come  to  that  pass  in  this  country  that  any  visionary  business 
adventurer  may  embark  in  an  enterprise  forbidden  by 
climate,  or  by  location,  or  by  other  natural  condition,  or 
by  the  tastes  and  habits  of  the  people,  and  yet  feel  war- 
ranted in  the  expectation  that  the  Government  will  come  to 
his  aid  by  taxing  sixty  millions  of  people  to  help  him  out  of 
the  mire?  It  has.  Let  us  all  thank  our  stars  of  good 
1  See  Report,  p.  937. 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  205 

fortune  that  Nature  placed  no  tin  mines  in  the  United 
States ;  for  if  there  be  found  but  one,  the  whole  nation  will 
be  taxed  in  order  to  enrich  the  owner.  This  is  not  an 
exaggeration.  Borax  and  boracic  acid  were  on  the  free 
list  as  not  being  American  products  till  it  was  discovered 
that  Nature  had  provided  one  rich  deposit  in  Nevada.  At 
once  the  enterprising  owner  rushed  to  Washington  demand- 
ing and  obtaining  protection  against  "  pauper  borax  ! " 
Again,  the  only  chrome  mines  yet  found  in  the  country 
belong  to  one  family,  who  have  forestalled  the  consumers 
of  chrome  by  getting  it  taken  from  the  free  list  and  placed 
on  the  protected.  Thus  the  more  Nature  blesses  a  country 
the  more  it  is  blasted  by  legislation.  Better  for  our  people 
if  these  deposits  had  lain  a  secret  in  the  earth  till  "  the  last 
syllable  of  recorded  time  ! "  According  to  the  theory  of 
protection  this  paradox  becomes  a  fact,  that  the  more  a 
country  is  blessed  by  Nature,  the  more  it  must  be  loaded 
down  by  protective  taxes ;  and  the  poorer  its  natural  re- 
sources, the  less  does  it  need  protection.  Let  us  rejoice 
that  in  the  diversity  of  her  gifts,  Nature  so  far  overlooked 
America  that  there  are  at  least  a  few  industries  which  are 
not  only  difficult  but  physically  impossible  ! 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


SOME  FALLACIES   OF  THE  PROTECTIONIST  SCHOOL. 

RUTH  is  consistent  with  itself.  In  all  its  wide 
range  there  is  no  absurdity  or  contradiction. 
In  the  economic  world,  as  in  the  mathematical, 
scientific,  or  moral,  the  test  of  every  statement 
is  harmony  with  the  known  body  of  truth.  If  it  agree 
thereto,  it  is  accredited  as  fact.  If  it  contradict,  it  is 
branded  as  error.  Let  us  try  some  of  the  claims  of  pro- 
tectionists by  this  standard. 

I.  Protectionists  assure  us  that  /'/  is  humiliating  and  un- 
patriotic to  leave  the  United  States  commercially  dependent 
on  Europe,  and  to  send  to  foreign  lands  for  what  we  need. 

Does  this  mean  that  we  should  reject  a  profitable  trade 
and  embrace  a  losing  one,  in  order  to  gratify  our  ambition  ? 
If  so,  it  is  not  pertinent  to  this  inquiry.  If  not,  it  is  the 
exact  idea  of  the  Chinese  and  the  Japanese,  who  have 
thought  so  for  a  thousand  years.  To-day  they  should  be 
the  wealthiest  nations  on  the  planet.  Protection  loses  sight 
of  the  fact,  which  is  so  evident  as  to  be  humdrum  and 
platitude,  that  the  true  interests  of  every  nation,  as  of  every 
man,  is  to  both  buy  and  sell  where  it  can  deal  to  the  best 
advantage,  be  it  at  home  or  abroad.  All  men  do  this 
when  not  under  the  dictation  of  Government.  Can  it  be 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  2O/ 

true  of  men  as  individuals,  and  yet  false  of  them  in  the 
million  ? 

But  there  is  really  no  such  a  thing  as  complete  industrial 
independence.  Is  it  any  the  less  to  the  interests  of  Liver- 
pool to  take  our  wheat,  than  it  is  ours  to  take  the  cutlery 
of  Sheffield  or  the  cloth  of  Leeds  ?  There  is  not  now,  and 
there  never  has  been,  a  great  nation  which  could  produce 
all  that  civilized  life  required.  The  Eskimo  and  the  Pata- 
gonian  are  the  only  men  on  the  western  hemisphere  who 
can  proclaim  their  independence  of  their  neighbors.  The 
more  highly  enlightened  men  become,  the  more  diversified 
are  their  wants  and  the  greater  their  commercial  depend- 
ence. Here  is  a  truth  as  compact  as  epigram :  "  Real 
independence  rests  upon  the  inter-dependence  of  nations." 
If  we  must,  by  the  very  limitations  of  physical  endowment, 
rely  upon  Brazil  for  coffee,  China  for  tea,  and  England  for 
tin,  is  there  any  law  of  business  prudence  really  practised 
among  freely  acting  men  anywhere  in  the  world,  which 
would  decree  that  we  should  even  make  the  attempt  to 
foster  by  legislation  a  difficult  and  nearly  impossible  indus- 
try, as  the  raising  of  bananas  in  Dakota,  or  the  breeding  of 
fur- bearing  animals  in  Texas?  But  does  it  not  inevitably 
follow  that  if  the  attempt  to  establish  an  impossible  indus- 
try by  law  must  result  in  total  loss,  the  attempt  to  establish 
a  difficult  and  unnatural  one  must  result  in  waste  and 
public  disadvantage? 

II.  Closely  related  to  this  is  the  argument  expressed  thus  : 
77  is  a  wise  policy  to  encourage  all  industries  by  legislation, 
to  the  end  that  we  may  develop  our  resources  and  have  diver- 
sity of  occupation.  This  is  fallacious  in  three  respects  :  — 

First.  It  may  be  patriotic,  but  it  is  not  economical,  to 
pay  a  large  price  for  a  home  article,  when  we  can  get  a 
foreign  one  at  a  small  price.  Every  man  practises  this, 


2O8  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

whether  it  be  in  harmony  with  his  theories  or  in  contradic- 
tion of  them.  Why  should  not  the  nation  do  the  same? 
John  Roach,  the  ship-builder,  exclaimed  before  the  Tariff 
Commission,  "  Shall  we  buy  iron  from  the  mines  four 
thousand  miles  away,  and  leave  the  ore  undeveloped  in 
our  own  inexhaustible  mountains  !  "  Undoubtedly,  if  it 
can  be  done  with  less  labor,  skill,  capital,  time,  —  in  a 
word,  if  it  be  cheaper.  Do  it  on  the  same  correct  prin- 
ciple which  leads  a  city  deeply  underlaid  with  the  best  of 
coal  to  neglect  the  opening  of  mines,  but  to  send  for  its  fuel 
fifty  miles  away  where  the  deposit  crops  out  to  the  surface, 
transportation  being  less  expensive  than  difficult  mining. 

Second.  It  is  fallacious  in  assuming  that  our  resources 
are  practically  without  limit.  "  Inexhaustible  mountains  " 
is  a  happy  phrase  to  express  the  protectionist  idea.  But  it 
is  misleading.  We  have  but  one  borax  mine.  To  develop 
it  in  the  protective  sense  means  its  probable  exhaustion 
within  a  decade.  We  have  had  the  richest  gold  fields  in 
either  hemisphere.  But  we  have  so  developed  this  mining 
industry  that  surface  washings  were  exhausted  twenty  years 
ago,  the  richest  veins  soon  followed,  and  now  only  deep 
and  hydraulic  mining  is  left.  Shall  we  act  the  part  of  the 
improvident  man  who  killed  his  goose  that  laid  the  golden 
eggs?  Will  the  men  who  shall  follow  us  in  the  distant 
future  —  the  lineal  and  rightful  heirs  of  this  age  —  thank 
us  for  the  unnatural  and  forced  development  of  the  boun- 
ties Nature  has  conferred  upon  us  in  trust  for  them  as 
much  as  in  fee  simple  for  ourselves? 

Third.  It  is  sophistical  in  assuming  that  unless  legis- 
lation should  interfere,  industries  will  not  spring  up.  The 
truth  is  rather  that  instead  of  taxes  being  necessary  to  de- 
velop manufactures,  neither  taxation  nor  prohibition  can 
prevent  them  from  leaping  into  activity.  Diversity  of  occu- 
pation is  in  human  nature  itself,  and  needs  no  legislative 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  209 

spur.  Our  own  history  teaches  it.  We  had  dozens  of 
well-established  industries  in  this  country,  using  the  best 
machinery  known  to  the  times,  many  years  before  the 
Revolution,  not  only  without  legislative  aid,  but  in  spite  of 
all  that  Parliament  could  do  to  prevent  them.  If  an  in- 
dustry does  not  exist,  the  fact  shows  that  it  can  not  exist  at 
that  time  and  place  except  at  a  loss.  To  commission  legis- 
lation to  create  it,  would  be  as  disastrous  as  to  issue  a 
license  to  a  tyro  in  surgery  to  run  amuck  in  the  streets 
with  edged  tools.  To  let  an  industry  lie  undeveloped 
until  such  time  as  it  will  grow  into  a  healthy  existence, 
is  far  wiser  than  to  galvanize  it  into  a  sickly  activity  by 
legislation. 

III.  One  of  the  most  common  arguments  of  protectionists 
may  be  formulated  thus  :  It  is  a  wise  policy  so  to  regulate 
and  equalize  the  facilities  of  production  between  our  country 
and  foreign  ones,  that  they  may  have  no  advantage  over  us 
in  our  markets.  A  protective  duty  equal  to  the  difference 
between  the  foreign  and  the  domestic  price  does  nothing  more 
than  secure  free  competition. 

Such  a  statement  is  as  full  of  fallacy  as  an  egg  is  of 
albumen. 

First.  It  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  chief  ob- 
ject is  to  win  a  race,  and  not  to  confer  a  benefit.  It  is 
illogical  to  base  an  argument  upon  a  metaphor.  If  two 
men  are  to  run  a  foot-race  on  a  wager,  it  is  quite  proper 
that  they  should  run  on  the  same  race-course,  during  the 
same  hour,  and  be  similarly  clothed  with  regard  to  impedi- 
ments, so  as  to  place  them  on  an  exact  equality,  except  as 
to  muscular  power  and  skill  in  racing.  But  if  utility  be  the 
object  to  be  attained,  —  if  a  man  is  bleeding  to  death,  — 
would  we  not  despatch  for  the  surgeon  the  swiftest  runner, 
by  the  most  direct  route  and  with  sole  reference  to  speed  ? 


2IO  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

So  in  this  question,  the  end  to  be  reached  is  to  secure  the 
well-being  of  the  nation,  not  to  plan  a  perfectly  balanced 
and  ideal  commercial  race. 

Second.  But  this  claim  is  based  on  the  further  assumption 
that  we  ought,  economically,  to  produce  for  ourselves,  in- 
stead of  buying  abroad,  everything  we  need,  or  at  least 
everything  whose  production  is  possible.  Protection  thus 
becomes  a  drag-net,  whose  purpose  is  to  bring  everything 
to  the  surface.  It  is  logic  running  wild.  We  produce 
coffee  not  at  all ;  tea,  with  incredible  difficulty :  silk,  at 
great  disadvantage ;  sugar,  but  not  so  well  as  Cuba ;  lace, 
but  not  so  cheaply  as  France ;  iron,  but  not  so  advanta- 
geously as  England ;  wheat,  excellently ;  and  cotton,  petro- 
leum, and  Indian  corn,  the  best  on  the  globe.  Where 
shall  we  draw  the  protective  line?  Protectionists  say,  on 
the  ragged  edge  which  divides  the  barely  possible  from 
the  utterly  impossible.  Their  theory  declares  that  duties 
should  be  increased  as  the  difficulty  in  production  increases, 
and  that  this  rising  climax  of  taxes  should  be  continued 
until  the  difficult  loses  itself  in  the  impossible. 

Third.  Protection  is  a  man-made  device  for  removing 
or  counteracting  the  special  facilities  which  other  nations 
may  have.  But  if  it  is  successful,  it  removes  the  very  foun- 
dations of  trade'  itself.  Streams  flow  because  the  beds  are 
inclined  :  make  them  level  and  you  have  a  stagnant  pond. 
Trade  exists  because  men  and  nations  in  their  individual 
capacity  have  certain  advantages  over  others.  Take  away 
this  special  advantage,  and  the  wheels  of  commerce  will 
no  longer  turn.  Commercial  stagnation  and  distress  must 
ensue.  That  trade  continues  with  foreign  nations  in  spite 
of  all  that  legislation  can  do  to  prevent  it,  only  shows  that 
the  elastic  forces  of  Nature  can  not  be  whipped  into  harness 
by  the  clumsy  devices  of  man. 

Fourth.  Even  if  equality  in  the  facilities  of  production 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  211 

were  a  desirable  thing,  legislation  is  utterly  powerless  to 
effect  it.  Nature  has  largely  fixed  the  endowments  and 
capacities  of  nations.  What  is  the  effect  of  the  law-made 
attempts  to  contravene  Nature  in  this  matter  of  special 
endowment  ?  Let  us  illustrate  :  Law  may  make  a  banana 
imported  from  Vera  Cruz  sell  for  as  much  as  one  produced 
in  the  hot-house  in  Detroit ;  but  it  can  never  take  away  the 
natural  advantages  of  Mexico,  nor  confer  them  upon  Mich- 
igan. It  can  only  equalize  the  price.  How  does  it  do 
this?  At  Vera  Cruz  each  banana  can  be  produced,  say, 
at  a  cost  of  one  cent ;  but  at  Detroit  at  a  cost  of  fifty  cents. 
The  Government  "  equalizes  our  facilities  "  in  the  produc- 
tion of  bananas  by  laying  a  tax  of  forty-nine  cents  on  the 
Mexican  fruit.  What  is  the  result?  (a)  The  price  of  fruit, 
both  foreign  and  domestic,  is  raised  for  all  consumers  to 
fifty  cents,  the  natural  price  in  Michigan.  (£)  It  is  quite 
as  easy  for  Vera  Cruz  to  compete  with  Detroit  as  it  was  be- 
fore, since  its  price  is  "  equalized  "  with  Michigan.  Hence 
the  seller  of  Vera  Cruz  can  sell  in  Detroit  at  least  to  as 
much  profit  as  at  home.  Under  these  circumstances  there 
is  nothing  to  protect  our  domestic  market ;  but  the  "  floods  " 
of  foreign  fruit  pour  in.  High  duty  is  no  barrier  so  long 
as  prices  remain  equalized,  (c)  So  long  as  the  price  is  kept 
at  full  tide  —  fifty  cents  —  the  national  treasury  receives 
forty-nine  cents  on  every  tropical  banana  consumed  here, 
and  hence  the  channels  of  revenue  are  full.  (</)  The  Mich- 
igan banana-grower  receives  no  more  profit  than  the  South- 
ern producer,  since  the  difference  in  his  receipts  no  more 
than  balances  his  excessive  cost  of  production,  and  thus 
makes  good  his  losses.  (")  But  the  moment  the  price  falls 
a  fraction  below  fifty  cents,  if  it  ever  does,  all  importation, 
and  hence  all  revenue,  is  cut  off  and  Detroit  has  a  monop- 
oly of  the  market.  But  this  is  not  attended  with  any  profit 
to  that  city,  but  rather  with  loss,  being  below  the  cost  of 


212  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

production.  If  this  is  not  the  case,  then  the  tax  was  a  pure 
subsidy  —  a  gratuity  voted  the  owner  of  the  Detroit  hot-house 
without  a  shadow  of  warrant,  according  to  his  own  theory. 

Thus  in  neither  case  does  protection  confer  a  benefit 
upon  the  domestic  producer,  while  in  both  cases  it  entails 
a  positive  loss  upon  the  domestic  consumer.  How  im- 
measurably wiser  would  it  be,  both  economically  and 
patriotically,  to  throw  open  the  doors  and  invite  in  the 
Mexican  producer  to  gladly  supply  our  people  with  his 
tropical  product  at  two  cents  apiece  !  How  infinitely  better 
would  it  be  for  legislation  to  say  to  Michigan  :  Confine 
yourself  to  the  production  of  copper,  lumber,  salt,  apples, 
and  other  articles  in  your  line,  in  which  you  may  reason- 
ably expect  to  surpass  the  world  !  It  is  a  losing  business 
to  attempt  to  convert  yourself  into  a  microcosm  ! 

Of  course,  the  above  is  an  exaggerated  illustration.  But 
is  it  not  a  true  one  ?  If  the  absurdities  of  the  protective 
system  appear  most  striking  in  the  light  of  such  an  extrava- 
gant but  entirely  relevant  illustration,  it  ought  to  be  kept 
in  mind  that  the  same  facts  and  influences  exist  in  smaller 
degree  in  every  one  of  those  industries  which  have  received 
government  favor.  If  not,  then  the  favor  was  obtained 
through  sheer  importunity,  or  log-rolling,  and  not  through 
argumentative  pretexts. 

Fifth.  The  exact  opposite  of  this  claim  is  true.  Instead 
of  trying  to  load  other  nations  down  so  as  to  create  an 
artificial  equality  of  facilities,  we  should  rejoice  that  they 
have  special  endowments,  to  the  end  that  we  may  profit  by 
their  heritage.  This  is  as  much  our  economic,  as  it  is  our 
moral  duty.  Instead  of  being  a  paradox,  a  little  reflection 
ought  to  make  it  appraent,  that  we  are  the  most  highly 
profited  by  unrestricted  exchange  for  just  those  articles  in 
which  we  are  the  least  endowed  by  Nature.  The  price  of 
an  article  is  not  graduated  to  our  necessities,  but  to  the 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  21$ 

cost  of  production.  If  the  fertility  of  every  farm  in  the 
United  States  were  doubled,  the  advantage  would  go  chiefly 
to  the  eater  of  bread  and  not  to  the  producer  of  wheat. 
The  more  other  countries  are  blessed  by  an  easy  produc- 
tion, the  more  are  we  enriched  by  interchange  with  them. 
The  most  fortunate  sections  and  countries  are  forced  by 
competition  to  ask  for  their  products  no  more  than  a  fair 
compensation  for  their  outlay  of  capital  and  labor.  The 
Indies  charge  us  for  their  spices,  not  the  full  amount 
which  production  would  cost  us,  or  which  we  would  be 
willing  to  pay,  but  only  the  moderate  price  which  other 
parts  of  the  tropical  zone  compel  them  to  accept.  Univer- 
sal man  is  the  gainer  by  a  cheap  production,  by  special  en- 
dowment, or  by  superior  facilities,  anywhere  on  the  globe. 
Since  we  "  struck  it  rich "  in  western  Pennsylvania,  and 
Europe  did  not  strike  it  at  all,  would  it  be  either  patriotic 
or  economical  for  her  to  refuse  to  exchange  her  cheap 
products  for  our  cheap  petroleum?  Is  it  not  plain  as 
noonday  that  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  would  realize  the 
maximum  of  profit  by  such  exchange? 

Sixth.  The  claim  is  false,  since,  if  an  equality  of  facilities 
is  desirable  at  all,  it  can  only  be  attained,  so  far  as  it  is 
attainable,  through  perfect  freedom  of  trade.  To  illustrate  : 
If  labor  both  at  Detroit  and  Vera  Cruz  costs  one  dollar  a 
day,  one  day's  labor  will  purchase  one  hundred  bananas  in 
the  latter  place,  but  only  two  in  the  former.  Now,  since 
the  Detroit  laborer  can  in  ^\-$  of  a  day  earn  the  money  to 
buy  a  banana  at  the  Vera  Cruz  market,  it  follows  that,  omit- 
ting the  cost  of  transportation,  he  would  enjoy  under  free 
trade  precisely  the  same  advantages  as  to  bananas  as  the 
Mexican  laborer.  Under  protection  the  inequality  is  the 
greatest  possible.  If  Government  does  not  step  in  to  dam 
up  the  flow  of  spontaneous  trade  by  its  cumbrous  interfer- 
ence, the  Detroiter  finds  the  condition  of  sale  equalized 


214  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

so  far  as  it  can  be  equalized,  and  exactly  so,  except  as  to 
the  cost  of  transportation.  To  equalize  the  facilities  of 
production  is  manifestly  beyond  the  control  of  men  or 
nations.  Freedom  is  the  true  equalizer.  It  alone  will 
enable  protectionists  to  realize  their  theory  of  equality. 
The  same  principle  applies  to  every  exchange,  interstate, 
international,  intercontinental. 

IV.  The  protectionist  says  :  //  is  necessary  in  true  econ- 
omy to  establish  the  factory  near  the  farm,  so  as  to  ensure 
the  home  consumption  of  our  raw  material  and  our  bread- 
stuffs,  and  to  save  the  waste  involved  in  transportation. 
There  is  no  business  prudence  in  shipping  cotton  to  Man- 
chester in  the  bale  and  back  again  in  the  bolt. 

Let  us  see.  First,  as  to  breadstuffs.  It  is  true  that  a 
village  filled  with  factories  will  consume  more  of  the  pro- 
ducts of  the  farm  than  one  without  these  industries.  It  is 
true  that  the  grain  produced  by  the  farmers  of  the  vicinity 
does  not  go  to  Liverpool ;  but  other  grain  goes  in  place  of 
it.  Furthermore,  this  home  sale  yields  the  farmer  no  more 
cash  than  the  foreign  market,  since  he  gets  only  the  British 
price,  less  the  cost  of  transportation.  So  long  as  exporta- 
tion of  grain  continues,  the  foreign  gauge  graduates  the 
prices  on  every  bushel  of  wheat  in  the  Republic. 

Second,  There  is  a  logical  lapse  in  the  talk  about  the 
needless  cost  of  transportation.  The  implication  is  that  it 
is  nothing  better  than  a  total  loss.  This  is  a  mistake.  The 
cotton  manufacturer  of  Manchester  buys  a  bale  of  cotton 
in  Savannah,  carries  it  to  his  factory,  converts  it  into  fabric, 
and  ships  it  to  New  York,  for  no  other  reason  than  that  he 
can  sell  there  at  prices  to  compensate  him  for  the  outlay, 
and  leave  a  better  margin  of  profit  besides  than  he  can  get 
elsewhere.  Transportation  was  to  him  not  a  loss  but  a 
source  of  profit.  It  was  not  a  loss  to  our  people,  since 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  21$ 

they  choose  the  transported  goods  in  preference  to  the 
domestic  ones.  It  is  always  profitable,  else  the  shipment 
could  not  have  been  made.  Instead  of  loss  there  is  gain  to 
our  farmers  in  sending  their  wheat  to  Liverpool,  else  they 
would  not  send  it.  Cotton  is  shipped  from  Calcutta  to 
England,  and  then  sent  back  to  clothe  the  poor  Hindoos. 
Would  it  benefit  the  natives  to  erect  a  factory  on  the  Gan- 
ges, so  long  as  they  can  get  more  for  their  cotton  and  pay 
less  for  their  muslin  by  dealing  with  the  Englishmen? 
Has  not  transportation  benefited  them  by  the  amount  of 
this  difference  ?  If  transportation  were  wasteful,  if  it  were 
not  positively  profitable,  the  fact  could  not  for  a  single 
hour  remain  concealed  from  the  people,  who  are  as  quick 
to  respond  to  a  loss  or  to  a  gain  as  the  mercury  in  the 
tube  is  to  a  blast  from  Manitoba. 

Third,  Protection  contemplates  the  giving  of  legal  aid, 
right  and  left,  to  every  industry.  But  the  argument  of  the 
home  market  theory  and  the  vicinage  principle  looks  toward 
the  serious  injury  of  one  very  important  branch  of  activity, 
that  of  the  common  carrier.  Railroads,  canals,  steamers, 
ships,  wagons,  are  potent  factors  in  our  civilization,  and 
millions  of  people  have  their  livelihood  therefrom.  If  we 
carry  out  the  argument  of  protectionists  against  transporta- 
tion we  shall  reduce  the  business  of  the  carrier  to  a  mini- 
mum. The  home  market  argument  must  mean  ruin  to  the 
transporter,  who  is  as  truly  a  factor  in  our  civilization  as 
the  producer  himself. 

V.  We  are  met  by  another  assertion  from  protectionists 
about  as  follows  :  If  you  remove  protection,  you  open  the 
flood-gates,  and  foreigners  will  pour  their  goods  in  by  the 
hundreds  of  millions,  our  manufacturers  will  be  obliged  to 
close  their  mills,  and  we  shall  prostrate  American  enterprise. 
The  harmfulness  of  these  "floods  of  cheap  goods"  has 


2l6  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

been  elsewhere  discussed.  But  some  further  thoughts 
arise. 

This  is  a  menace.  The  crack  of  the  whip  can  be  plainly 
heard.  Is  it  truth,  or  is  it  sound,  signifying  nothing? 
First.  It  may  be  stated  with  all  seriousness  that  absolute 
free  trade  would  not  have  the  effect  largely  to  increase  our 
foreign  importation.  It  has  been  already  shown  that  if  the 
domestic  price  is  equal  to  the  foreign  plus  the  duty,  as  is 
and  has  long  been  the  case  in  nearly  all  of  our  leading  in- 
dustries that  receive  protection,  the  duty  does  not  even 
tend  to  diminish  importation.  It  puts  a  positive  premium 
upon  it,  and  increases  its  volume.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  prohibitive  point,  until  the  home  price  sinks  below  the 
sum  of  the  foreign  price,  the  duty,  and  cost  of  carriage. 
Then  indeed  all  importation  must  cease.  Since,  under  our 
present  scale  of  prices,  the  duty  constitutes  no  barrier  to  the 
importation  of  many  leading  products,  it  follows  that  under 
no  circumstances  could  we  be  more  "  flooded,"  or  manu- 
facturers be  subjected  to  more  foreign  competition,  than  at 
the  present. 

Second.  The  frequent  recurrence  of  strikes,  cutting  of 
wages,  lock-outs,  running  on  short  time,  and  business  de- 
pression, especially  among  highly  protected  industries,  leads 
us  to  infer  that  such  calamities  could  scarcely  be  worse  or 
more  frequent,  even  if  the  claim  of  protectionists  were  true. 
To  use  a  homely  figure,  "  The  fire  could  scarcely  be  worse 
than  the  frying-pan."  Such  facts  are  doing  more  to  show 
the  masses  of  our  people  the  hollowness  and  wastefulness 
of  protection,  than  all  the  speeches,  pamphlets,  and  books 
that  have  ever  been  written. 

Third.  If  protection  were  abandoned,  it  is  doubtless 
true  that  our  manufacturers  would  be  compelled  to  accept 
a  lower  price.  To  compensate  for  this  they  would  be  re- 
lieved of  the  burden  of  antecedent  duties  on  raw  material, 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

which  back- taxes  and  waterlogs  every  finished  product. 
Also  they  would  have  a  world,  and  not  merely  a  nation  or 
a  section,  for  a  market.  Many  manufacturers  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  say  these  advantages  outweigh  their  government 
bounty.  Lower  prices  do  not  imply  lower  profits,  as  every 
business  man  knows.  Manufactures  have  flourished  under 
all  kinds  of  tariff  we  have  ever  had,  as  they  did  when  we 
had  no  tariff  at  all,  and  there  is  really  no  good  reason  or 
basis  of  fact  in  the  prediction  of  the  alarmist  that  the  aban- 
donment of  protection  would  result  in  the  downfall  of  our 
industries.  They  would  keep  right  along  as  before.  Our 
makers  of  quinine  said  they  would  be  compelled  to  go  out 
of  business,  if  the  tax  were  removed  from  their  drug.  They 
were  either  ignorantly  mistaken  or  else  were  trying  to  intim- 
idate the  country.  Some  sickly  and  hot-bed  growths  might 
perish.  Not  only  would  it  be  a  "  survival  of  the  fittest," 
but  a  survival  of  all  that  are  fit  to  live.  Only  those  would 
perish  which  ought  never  on  economic  grounds  to  have 
had  an  existence  at  all.  Notwithstanding  the  exact  cli- 
matic adaptation  of  Dakota  and  Minnesota  to  the  wheat 
plant,  that  cereal  is  grown  as  a  profitable  field  crop  in 
every  State  and  Territory  in  the  Union.  No  more  can 
foreign  lands  overthrow  our  industries,  even  though  they 
should  possess  superior  facilities. 

Fourth.  But  even  if  foreigners  could  crush  our  native 
industries,  it  is  evidently  impossible  that  they  could  do  so 
without  establishing  prices  so  low  as  to  ruin  themselves  also. 
This  would  be  a  golden  opportunity  for  the  American  con- 
sumers. But  it  is  said  that  the  English,  having  compassed 
our  ruin,  would  recover  their  losses  and  make  fabulous 
gains  in  addition,  by  putting  up  their  prices  at  their  pleasure. 
But  would  not  the  German  and  the  French  enter  the  field 
at  this  point  and  spoil  the  British  game  on  the  commercial 
chess-board?  Would  not  our  domestic  industries  spring 


2l8  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

into  sudden  life  again,  under  the  stimulus  of  high  prices  ? 
No  one  who  looks  below  the  mere  surface  can  believe  for  a 
moment  that  even  absolute  free  trade  would  ruin  our  man- 
ufactures. Already  have  we  had  a  surfeit  of  mere  asser- 
tion in  place  of  reason,  and  the  subterfuges  of  the  alarmist 
in  lieu  of  argument. 

VI.  One  of  the  commonest  and  emptiest  arguments  of 
protectionists  may  be  summed  up  as  follows  :  "  If  we  buy 
domestic  goods  only,  our  money  will  be  kept  at  home"  The 
old  mercantile  and  bullion  theories  have  some  vitality  even 
in  our  own  day.  Error  is  protean  in  its  forms. 

This  has  been  referred  to  elsewhere,  but  let  us  look 
further.  Men  trade  for  profit,  and  if  left  free  to  act  they 
will  always  trade  where  the  profit  is  greatest.  Hence  if  a 
man  is  compelled  by  law  to  buy  a  domestic  article  when  he 
would  prefer  a  foreign  one,  he  is  poorer  than  he  would  have 
been  without  the  law.  His  money  truly  does  remain  at 
home ;  but  more  of  it  goes  into  the  pockets  of  other  people 
and  less  of  it  remains  in  his  own,  than  would  be  the  case  if 
he  were  at  liberty  to  exercise  his  choice.  What  man  would 
pay  $50  instead  of  $30  for  a  suit  of  clothes,  and  solace  him- 
self with  the  reflection  that  the  $20  "  remained  at  home"? 

If  there,  is  any  validity  at  all  in  this  argument,  it  must 
mean  that  a  man  should  make  an  unprofitable  purchase  in 
order  that  his  money  may  lodge  in  the  pockets  of  his 
neighbor.  Every  man  would  receive  such  a  proposition  as 
a  joke ;  or,  if  that  be  impossible,  he  would  resent  it  as  an 
insult  to  his  intelligence.  The  same  reasoning  would  for- 
bid trade  across  state,  county,  township,  or  municipal  lines. 
It  proves  too  much.  Millions  have  been  made  by  watering 
stocks,  wrecking  railroads,  and  manipulating  Wall  Street. 
Is  it  any  great  consolation  to  the  shareholder  of  a  ham- 
mered stock  to  be  told  that  his  money  remains  at  home, 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  2IQ 

—  in  the  bank  balance  of  the  millionnaire  ?  Is  it  not  provo- 
cation enough  to  know  that  his  values  were  taken  away 
designedly  and  wrongfully  under  the  forms  of  law  ? 

VII.  A  form  of  argument  once  very  popular  and  still 
often  heard,  is  about  as  follows :  The  industries  of  this 
country  are  still  in  their  infancy,  and  it  is  a  wise  policy  to 
extend  to  them  legislative  aid  till  they  can  become  firmly  es- 
tablished;  they  can  then  take  care  of  themselves.  This  is 
plausible  and  sounds  like  a  good  argument ;  but  will  it  bear 
scrutiny  ? 

First.  Many  of  these  infants  are  well  advanced  in  years. 
The  manufacture  of  linen,  woollen,  and  cotton  cloth  began 
at  Rowley,  Massachusetts,  in  1638.  Glass-making  and  salt- 
works date  from  1640.  Tannery,  shoemaking,  and  iron- 
working  began  in  1642.  Several  of  our  industries  never 
received  any  legislative  aid  till  they  were  more  than  a  cen- 
tury old.  We  can  no  longer  speak  of  "  infant  industries," 
unless  we  are  willing  to  claim  a  second  childhood. 

Second.  They  are  also  very  mature  and  well  developed 
infants.  The  woollen  infant  produced  in  1880  no  less  than 
$265,684,796  in  manufactured  products.  In  the  same  year 
our  iron  and  steel  mills  turned  out  goods  to  the  value  of 
$296,557,685.  The  cotton  industry  uses  1,300,000  bales 
of  the  fibre  every  year.  The  chemical  industry  shows  a 
production  of  $100,000,000  annually.  Goliath  of  Gath  was 
"  an  infant  of  days  "  in  comparison  with  the  giant  industries 
of  the  United  States. 

Third.  History  is  instructive  on  this  .point.  At  the  time 
of  the  adoption  of  the  Hamilton  Tariff,  about  a  century 
ago,  the  iron  interest  said  it  needed  only  a  "  little  encour- 
agement and  for  a  short  time."  It  was  granted.  From 
that  day  forward  a  duty  has  been  demanded  and  received 
till  the  present  time,  when  it  ranges  from  twenty  to  one 


22O  /S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

hundred  per  cent.  Originally,  cotton  needed  only  five  per 
cent  protection ;  now  it  is  "  fostered  "  by  a  duty  of  from 
thirty  to  sixty  per  cent.  Woollen  manufacturers  said  in 
1810  that  they  needed  a  protection  of  from  five  to  twenty- 
two  per  cent  "  for  only  a  year  or  two  longer."  More  than 
seventy  years  have  passed,  and  they  are  still  demanding 
and  receiving  from  forty  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  per 
cent.  The  first  tariff  averaged  eight  per  cent,  under  the 
plea  couched  in  such  phrases  as  "  a  little  fostering,"  "  tem- 
porary encouragement,"  "a.  short  time  longer,"  "a  few 
years,"  "  till  they  can  get  on  their  feet."  After  a  century 
of  "fostering,"  the  average  duty  to-day  is  forty-two  per 
cent.  Is  it  not  time  we  were  raising  these  inquiries :  Do 
these  weaklings  intend  ever  to  drop  the  foster  hand,  and 
stand  on  their  feet?  Will  these  dependent  infants  ever 
develop  into  self-reliant  adults  ?  More  fortunate  than  Ponce 
de  Leon,  they  seem  to  have  discovered  the  "  Fountain  of 
Perpetual  Youth." 

VIII.  A  plea  somewhat  similar  to  the  preceding  is  as 
follows  :  Protection  will  lead  up  to  and  prepare  the  way  for 
freedom  in  trade. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  plea,  which  is  still  often  made, 
is  based  on  the  confession  that  freedom  in  trade  is  best  as 
a  permanent  policy,  and  that  protection  is  to  be  tolerated 
only  as  a  temporary  expedient.  This  indeed  was  the 
expressed  view  of  the  fathers  of  our  protective  system. 
Webster  said  sixty  years  ago  that  the  time  had  then 
come  "when  all  that  intelligence  and  industry  could  ask 
for  was  fair  play  and  an  open  field."  When  the  Morrill 
Tariff  was  adopted  in  1861,  Horace  Greeley  said  in  the 
New  York  Tribune,  that  ten  years  of  protection  would 
enable  us  satisfactorily  to  compete  on  even  terms  with 
Europe.  Instead  of  ten  years  we  have  had  twenty-seven, 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  221 

and  we  are  still  maintaining  a  higher  tariff  than  was  then 
enacted. 

During  all  our  history  till  1865,  protection  said  it  would 
look  toward  its  own  extinction ;  but  it  never  did.  It  has 
never  been  ready  to  give  place  to  a  fiscal  system  which  it 
has  all  the  time  acknowledged  to  be  better  as  a  final  policy. 
To-day  it  looks  steadily  to  its  own  perpetuity. 

Its  inevitable  tendency  is  to  nourish  dependence,  not 
independence.  Of  necessity  it  promotes  imbecility,  and 
not  a  healthy  vigor.  Besides,  as  a  system,  it  was  adopted 
by  the  "log-rolling"  of  the  several  interests,  and  by  the 
same  means  has  it  been  kept  in  existence  till  to-day.  It 
has  been  found  that  protection  for  some  industries  can  not 
be  equitably  united  with  freedom  for  others.  If  one  in- 
dustry should  be  set  out  to  care  for  itself,  the  machinery 
and  raw  material  used  by  it  would  be  so  much  increased  in 
cost  by  the  protection  accorded  others,  that  it  would  have 
no  fair  chance  of  competition  even  in  our  own  markets. 
Hence,  it  is  nearly  impossible  to  take  government  favor  from 
one  industry,  unless  the  whole  system  were  abandoned. 

But  while  admitting  the  final  wisdom  of  doing  this,  the 
cry  arises  from  both  the  younger  and  the  older  interests 
that  they  are  not  yet  ready.  After  a  delay  of  ten  years  it  is 
found  that  a  troop  of  new  infants  have  come  into  being, 
who  clamor  for  still  longer  delay.  Thus  we  go  on  without 
limit.  So  long  as  protection  cultivates  weakness  instead  of 
strength,  dependence  instead  of  self-reliance,  we  shall  look 
in  vain  to  see  it  "  lead  up  "  to  anything.  It  always  leads 
down  to  public  loss  in  order  to  secure  individual  gain. 
Instead  of  voting  its  own  extinction,  it  has  always  intrigued 
to  secure  its  own  perpetuity. 

IX.  We  are  frequently  confronted  by  such  a  plea  as  this  : 
Free  trade  is  a  very  elegant  dogma  and  very  beautiful  as  a 


222  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

mere  theory  ;  but  practical  men  want  protection.  Free  trade 
is  such  a  heavenly  conception  that  it  can  never  go  into  opera- 
tion till  the  arrival  of  the  Millennium. 

Such  sneering  confessions  are  found  at  intervals  in  the 
writings  of  nearly  all  protectionists,  and  are  pretty  sure  to 
close  up  a  conversational  debate  on  the  question. 

Note  that  it  is  a  confession.  The  beauties  of  freedom 
in  trade  are  so  apparent  that  they  compel  an  unwilling 
admiration  even  from  its  enemies.  Note,  also,  that  it  is 
most  convenient  as  a  "  last  ditch,"  in  which  to  take  refuge 
when  routed  from  the  more  exposed  positions.  It  serves 
also  as  a  flag  of  truce  under  which  to  beat  a  retreat. 

There  are  few  fair-minded  protectionists  who,  when  en- 
gaged in  candid  discussion,  will  not  admit  the  abstract  jus- 
tice and  correctness  of  free  trade.  That  they  do  not  give 
it  their  individual  adherence  may  be  owing  to  their  personal 
interest  in  the  continuation  of  protection,  or  to  a  fear  of 
the  party  whip,  or  to  the  clinging  bias  of  old  opinions  and 
early  education,  or  to  a  belief  that  the  country  is  not  yet 
ready  for  the  adoption  of  unrestricted  trade. 

Free  trade,  or  what  is  the  same  thing  so  far  as  the  pres- 
ent discussion  extends,  revenue  tariff,  has  made  no  record 
since  1860.  In  that  sense,  it  is  a  theory  as  to  the  United 
States.  But  if  the  charge  is  that  the  teachings  of  free  trade 
are  a  bundle  of  precepts,  axioms,  propositions,  and  conclu- 
sions, which  are  purely  metaphysical  and  have  no  objective 
reality  outside  the  conceptions  of"  philosophers  and  college 
theorists,"  the  claim  is  wholly  untrue.  There  is  no  field  of 
inquiry  more  fertile  to  the  advocates  of  free  trade  than  the 
domain  of  history  and  experience,  both  past  and  present. 
They  are  ever  ready  to  challenge  a  comparison  of  protective 
and  free-trade  eras  in  the  history  of  our  own  or  any  other 
country,  and  to  submit  their  principles  to  the  test  of  stub- 
born facts.  No  statement  is  a  more  compact  slander  than 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  22$ 

the  sneer  that  the  advocates  of  freedom  in  trade  are  literary, 
collegiate,  and  impracticable  men,  who  deal  in  rhetoric, 
but  ignore  facts  and  figures,  —  a  set  of  college-bred  cranks 
and  theorists.  It  is  nevertheless  true  that  protection  is  at 
variance  with  the  teaching  of  nearly  all  writers  on  political 
economy  and  of  our  institutions  of  learning. 

Economic  science  does  not  deal  in  abstractions  and 
logical  subtleties.  That  which  is  not  true  in  practice  is 
not  true  at  all.  The  very  word  "  theory  "  means  a  systematic 
and  general  statement  of  things  which  are  true  in  detail. 
If  protection  is  conceded  to  be  false  in  theory,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  it  should  be  desirable  in  practice.  If  it  is  cor- 
rect in  abstract  principle,  it  must  be  best  in  practice  also. 
There  is  nothing  more  worthy  of  respect  than  a  good  theory 
in  harmony  with  the  facts  and  the  drift  of  the  universe,  — 
such,  for  example,  as  Newton's  Theory  of  Gravitation. 
"  Wonderfully  primitive  and  simple  is  the  postulate  which 
makes  free  trade  a  theory  at  all,  namely,  that  any  two  par- 
ties wishing  to  exchange  goods  for  their  mutual  benefit 
should  be  allowed  to  do  so,  provided  no  other  man's  rights 
are  infringed  thereby."  It  is  a  matter  for  surprise  that  in 
the  question  now  under  discussion  there  are  men  who  will 
concede  that  a  thing  is  true  in  principle  but  false  in  prac- 
tice. This  is  a  mental  summersault.  That  we  have  those 
who  perform  such  feats  in  logical  acrobatics,  is  evidence  that 
they  are  not  willing  to  know  and  follow  the  truth  wherever 
it  may  lead. 

This  claim  of  our  opponents  puts  free-traders  in  a  very 
embarrassing  position.  If  we  assail  their  doctrines,  they 
abandon  them.  If  we  prove  our  "  theory,"  they  admit  the 
truth  of  it.  They  are  plastic  under  the  white  heat  of  truth. 
They  so  far  grant  the  correctness  of  what  we  urge,  that  we 
almost  feel  that  we  are  beating  the  air.  They  ask  only  one 
favor,  —  that  our  "  theory,"  which  they  acknowledge  to  be 


224  &  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

true,  shall  be  confined  to  books  and  the  college  class-room, 
and  that  their  views,  which  they  acknowledge  to  be  false, 
shall  be  enthroned  in  practice.  If  we  will  allow  them  to 
regulate  the  tariffs,  attend  to  the  matter  of  taxation,  and 
reign  in  the  domain  of  legislation,  they  are  willing  that  we 
shall  write  economic  theses,  sit  in  the  chair  of  the  professor, 
and  be  supreme  in  the  fields  of  literature. 

But  in  this  plea  protectionists  sometimes  mean  that  while 
free  trade  may  be  the  best  in  principle,  it  can  not  be  adopted 
here  while  other  nations  practise  protection.  If  Germany 
and  France  have  plundered  us  by  their  protective  tariffs, 
ought  we  to  authorize  a  favored  class  of  our  own  citizens  to 
plunder  us  still  more  ?  If  strangers  smite  us  on  one  cheek, 
must  we  forthwith  smite  ourselves  on  the  other  ?  The  argu- 
ment really  amounts  to  this  :  Certain  foreigners  by  taxing 
our  exports  have  reduced  our  profit  on  what  we  sell  them  ; 
therefore,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  tax  their  exports  in  order 
to  reduce  our  profit  on  what  we  buy  from  them.  Germany 
will  not  take  our  pork ;  therefore,  we  must  call  upon  our 
people  to  make  a  further  sacrifice  in  refusing  German  cloth, 
though  it  be  the  best  and  cheapest  in  the  market.  If  for- 
eigners commit  a  folly  and  cut  off  half  the  profits  of  our 
international  trade,  we  must  at  once  commit  the  same  folly 
and  cut  off  the  other  half.  Is  not  this  what  a  gallery-god 
would  dub  "  a  howling  absurdity  "  ? 

X.  Says  the  protectionist :  //  is  a  fact  of  history  that  all 
nations  —  England,  France,  Germany  —  began  with  protec- 
tion. So  should  we. 

This  is  merely  an  annex  to  the  argument  on  "infant 
industries."  It  is  a  reckless  deduction  from  certain  facts  of 
history,  without  an  inquiry  as  to  whether  the  conclusion 
really  follows.  If  the  assertion  proves  anything,  it  proves 
too  much.  All  Middle  Age  Europe  began  with  the  Feudal 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 


225 


System.  Shall  we  ?  All  Europe  based  its  civilization  upon 
the  subjection  and  inferiority  of  the  masses  and  the  suprem- 
acy of  a  few.  Shall  we?  All  modern  Europe,  except 
England,  began  with  provincial  and  municipal  tolls.  Shall 
we  begin  so  also? 

But  some  of  these  nations  have  abandoned  protection 
after  centuries  of  trial,  notably  the  one  nearest  to  us  in 
commerce,  in  speech,  in  laws,  in  blood.  It  would  be 
speedily  abandoned  in  all  the  rest,  were  it  not  that  vested 
interests  and  aggregated  capital,  aided  sometimes  by  the 
connivance  of  imperialism  and  the  ignorance  of  the  popu- 
lace, have  been  sufficient  to  secure  its  continuation.  Shall 
we  adhere  to  a  mediaeval  custom  which  robbers  invented, 
which  the  necessities  of  commerce  have  long  ago  outgrown, 
and  which  even  many  of  its  friends  confess  is  a  tax  on  the 
masses  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  ?  Shall  we  learn  nothing 
from  the  experience  of  others,  and  from  our  own  ?  Shall 
we  insist  upon  bringing  upon  our  country,  as  Gladstone 
said  England  brought  upon  itself,  "  losses  and  penalties  for 
its  long  adherence  to  folly  "  ? 

XI.  Another  fallacy  may  be  stated  thus  :  In  our  his- 
tory we  have  had  more  years  of  tariff  for  protection  than 
for  revenue.  For  almost  a  generation  has  protection  been 
maintained  by  respectable  majorities  in  Congress.  This 
shows  that  public  sentiment  is  favorable  to  the  system, 
and  that  revenue  tariff  is  unpopular. 

Assume  for  the  moment  that  protection  is  the  more 
popular.  Does  it  follow  that  it  is  best  for  the  nation? 
Truth  is  not  settled  by  ballot  majorities.  The  university 
faculty  of  Salamanca  voted  that  the  earth  is  flat,  and  that 
Columbus  was  a  fool.  Christianity  was  unpopular  at  Rome 
during  the  ten  persecutions.  African  slavery  was  popular 
in  our  country  for  two  hundred  and  forty-three  years. 


226  JS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

To-day  polytheism  is  the  most  popular  religion  in  the  world. 
But  shall  we  sell  our  churches  and  build  Chinese  joss- 
houses  ?  A  strong  majority  may  give  legality  to  an  error  ; 
but  ballots  can  not  attest  the  correctness  of  a  principle  in 
ethics  or  a  policy  in  government.  The  argument  is  worth- 
less, if  truth  and  public  benefit  and  not  mere  victory  is  the 
end  to  be  attained. 

But  there  is  no  warrant  for  the  assertion  that  protection 
is  the  more  popular.  The  people  have  never  voted  on 
the  question  pure  and  simple.  For  the  first  time  in  a  gen- 
eration, it  is  now  becoming  an  issue  in  our  national  politics. 
When  it  has  been  discussed  at  all,  it  has  been  involved  in 
other  issues  which  have  distracted  the  public  attention. 
All  we  can  say  is,  that  for  over  twenty  years  public  opinion 
has  passively  tolerated  protection,  most  of  the  time  without 
thinking  whether  it  was  a  blessing  or  a  blight. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  are  warranted  in  the  assertion 
that  it  has  been  upheld  negatively  by  this  public  indiffer- 
ence, and  actively  by  log-rolling  combinations  of  interested 
men.  All  Congressmen  know,  and  many  of  them  have 
confessed,  that  protection  could  not  live  a  month  without 
a  time-serving  dicker  between  protected  interests.  The 
;'  bargain  and  sale "  runs  all  along  the  line.  Though 
manufacturers  are  burning  with  desire  to  overthrow  the 
protective  tax  on  raw  material,  they  plainly  state  in  their 
journals,  in  the  congressional  lobby,  and  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means,  that  they  do  not  urge  it, 
since  to  do  so  would  be  to  hazard  the  entire  system.  In 
this  apprehension  they  are  undoubtedly  correct.  Protec- 
tion is  so  opposed  to  the  general  welfare,  that  the  protected 
industries  themselves  turn  against  it  when  their  spoils  are 
taken  away.  This  pooling  of  interests  is  the  sole  cause  of 
the  continuation  of  the  system  from  year  to  year.  The 
votes  do  not  represent  a  public  demand. 


SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  22? 

XII.  One  of  the  curious  sophisms  of  protection  is  as 
follows :  Low  tariff'  may  be  best  for  the  nation ;  but  our 
industries  have  now  adjusted  themselves  to  protective  con- 
ditions^ and  a  change  would  prove  disastrous  to  them. 
Vested  interests  have  grown  up  under  our  laws,  and,  there- 
fore, we  have  no  right  to  injure  them.  Do  not  frighten 
capital  and  disorganize  manufacture  by  agitating  the  tariff 
question. 

The  assumption  here  is  that  whenever  and  by  whatever 
means  a  tariff-tax  has  been  placed  on  the  statute-books, 
a  sacredness  attaches  to  it,  and  that  its  present  existence 
gives  it  a  title  to  perpetuity.  It  further  assumes  that  the 
evils  of  getting  rid  of  a  bad  law  are  greater  than  the  ills 
which  flow  from  the  law  itself.  Such  a  view,  if  carried 
into  practice,  would  stop  the  wheels  of  progress  at  once. 
It  advances  error  to  the  front  and  passes  truth  to  the  rear. 
To  suppress  agitation  is  to  create  the  stillness  of  death. 

It  is  a  principle  of  jurisprudence,  attested  by  Blackstone 
and  all  the  commentators,  that  a  bad  law  is  in  its  very  na- 
ture void.  The  problem  is  to  make  its  badness  apparent. 
When  this  is  clearly  done,  its  validity  is  gone,  and  its  for- 
mal repeal  is  only  a  matter  of  votes. 

Free-traders  have  not  usually  caused  the  agitation. 
Three  fourths  of  all  the  changes  in  our  tariff  laws  have 
been  inspired  by  protectionists  themselves. .  Will  their  sud- 
den repeal  create  any  greater  mischief  than  did  their  sudden 
adoption?  In  nearly  every  case  they  have  been  enacted 
without  notice,  and  so  suddenly  as  to  leave  industry  no 
time  to  adapt  itself  to  the  new  conditions. 

Concede  for  the  moment  that  the  abolition  of  protection 
would  bring  temporary  misfortune  to  some.  Who  is  re- 
sponsible ?  It  must  be  the  system  which  has  for  its  object 
to  induce  men  and  capital  to  enter  upon  employments 
naturally  unprofitable,  legally  created,  and  therefore,  sub- 


228  S-S  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

jected  to  the  mutations  of  law.  To  fasten  upon  the  country 
a  system  acknowledged  to  be  injurious,  and  then  to  use  the 
mere  fact  of  its  existence  as  a  pretext  for  making  it  as 
unrepealable  as  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  is,  to 
speak  with  mildness,  the  apex  of  audacity. 

XIII.  Well-meaning  but  superficial   persons    sometimes 
assert   that  protection   compels  foreigners   to   accept   lower 
prices  for  their  goods,  and  thus  to  pay  a  part  of  our  tax- 
burden. 

It  may  be  replied  that  if  there  were  any  way  by  which 
one  nation  could  compel  another  to  bear  even  a  part  of 
its  burdens,  it  would  have  been  found  out  and  universally 
applied  centuries  ago.  No  American  law  can  compel  a 
foreigner  to  take  a  reduced  price  for  his  wares.  The  very 
fact  that  he  sends  them  here  shows  that  he  receives  a 
greater  price  than  he  could  get  at  home.  It  is  a  fact  in  the 
very  A  B  C  of  taxation  that  the  person  who  consumes 
goods  pays  all  the  taxes  which  have  been  placed  upon 
them.  All  preceding  buyers  are  reimbursed  by  the  final 
sale.  No  axiom  of  geometry  is  more  certain  than  that  we 
carry  our  own  burdens,  and  that  foreigners  do  not  lift  them 
by  the  weight  of  a  feather. 

XIV.  An  impression  exists  widely  among  protectionists, 
and  is  diligently  cultivated  by  their  journals,  that  *'/  is  the 
ardent  wish  of  England  that  we  should  repeal  our  protective 
taxes  in  order  that  she  might  invade  our  markets. 

There  can  be  no  greater  mistake.  It  assumes,  first,  that 
because  it  was  true  fifty  years  ago  it  is  true  still ;  and,  sec- 
ond, that  England  does  not  now  "  invade  "  our  markets, 
which  is  untrue. 

But  concede  that  protection  does,  to  some  extent,  re- 
strain imports.  England  knows  that  we  already  manufac- 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  22$ 

ture  a  surplus  of  nearly  everything  which  she  manufactures ; 
and  that  it  is  vastly  more  to  her  interest  that  she  be  ex- 
cluded from  our  markets,  which  are  already  full,  than  that 
we  should  compete  with  her  in  all  the  rest  of  the  world. 
English  statesmen  have  repeatedly  asserted  this.  England 
knows,  and  we  all  confess,  that  we  can  never  conquer  for- 
eign markets  so  long  as  we  continue  to  hug  protection. 

Read  what  Sir  Lyon  Playfair,  Deputy  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  one  of  the  greatest  living  author- 
ities on  economic  questions,  wrote  in  Macmillan's  Maga- 
zine of  February,  1882,  after  his  visit  to  this  country  :  "The 
protective  duties  of  America  remove  from  us  the  most  for- 
midable competitor  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  by  rais- 
ing its  cost  of  production.  They  protect  England  in  all 
neutral  markets,  and  enable  us  to  send  even  into  the 
United  States  ,£25,000,000  of  manufactured  goods,  while 
they  return  to  us  less  than  .£3,000,000.  It  is  impossible 
not  to  foresee  that  the  United  States  will,  in  the  end,  be 
the  great  manufacturing  country  of  the  world ;  but  they 
can  not  assume  this  position  under  their  present  fiscal  pol- 
icy ;  and  the  final  consummation  will,  in  any  case,  be 
immensely  retarded  by  the  endless  evils  which  spread  like 
weeds  over  a  country  where  a  protective  policy  has  long 
prevailed." 

England  could  not  hope  to  displace  any  large  part  of 
our  products,  even  if  she  should  enter  our  markets  on  per- 
fect equality;  but  her  sagacious  statesmen  and  manufac- 
turers know  that  if  we  should  cast  aside  the  system  which 
keeps  our  products  at  home,  we  would  soon  realize  our 
advantage,  and  become  her  rival  in  the  trade  of  the  world. 
Gladstone  has  plainly  told  his  people  that  they  must  be 
prepared  to  see,  at  no  distant  day,  the  commercial  suprem- 
acy of  the  United  States.  All  Englishmen  realize  more 
fully  than  we,  how  greatly  the  abandonment  of  protection 


230  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

will  hasten  that  day.  If  we  would  please  the  English  we 
will  continue  protection.  "  A  little  folly  now  and  then  is 
relished  by  the  best  of  men  ;  "  but  in  the  light  of  these 
facts,  the  assertion  often  made  that  "  free-traders  are  emis- 
saries of  the  Cobden  Club  and  are  bribed  by  British  gold," 
is  too  funny.  It  eclipses  Mark  Twain  and  all  the  humorists. 
And  yet  there  are  men  so  credulous  as  to  accept  this  fustian 
of  the  ultra-protectionists. 

XV.  One  more  fallacy  must  be  mentioned :  If  we  adopt 
free  trade,  we  shall  accept  the  policy  of  England,  our  ancient 
enemy  in  war  and  our  present  rival  in  commerce.  We  will 
not  copy  anything  from  the  English. 

Shallow  as  this  Anglophobia  is,  it  continues  to  be  urged 
by  persons  of  fair  intelligence,  and  even  by  steady-going 
citizens  who  profess  the  "  cosmopolitan  religion  of  good- 
will and  peace." 

It  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  it  sounds  most  like  an 
argument  or  a  joke.  If  we  are  to  reject  everything  Eng- 
lish, let  us  begin  with  the  English  language  and  the  English 
Bible.  Then  follow  up  by  tossing  out  trial  by  jury,  both 
houses  of  Congress,  and  our  entire  judicial  system.  Adopt 
the  Code  Napoleon.  Then  part  with  our  navigation  laws, 
which  not  only  caught  the  spirit  but  even  the  very  phra- 
seology of  the  English  Act  which  galled  us  so  deeply  down 
to  the  war  of  1812.  Nay,  we  must  part  with  the  protec- 
tive system  itself.  It  is  borrowed  from  England,  —  not 
merely  in  its  spirit,  but  bodily  and  verbally.  The  entire 
system  is  foreign  and  antiquated,  and  is  neither  original 
nor  American.  History  declares  that  it  was  adopted  by 
our  revolutionary  fathers  as  a  club  with  which  to  compel 
England  to  give  us  free  trade.  "  When  Henry  Clay  called 
it  the  American  System,  Daniel  Webster  ridiculed  the 
designation  in  the  Senate,  and  pronounced  it  altogether 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  231 

un-American."  England  was  one  of  the  inventors  of  the 
system,  but  she  was  also  one  of  the  first  to  cast  it  aside, 
and  return  to  the  policy  which  she  now  wishes  she  had 
never  left. 

On  the  other  hand,  free  trade  is  not  English.  She  can 
claim  no  priority  of  invention.  It  is  as  old  as  Greece  and 
Rome.  America  had  adopted  it,  and  was  "  spreading  her- 
self like  a  green  bay-tree  "  under  its  influence,  more  than 
two  hundred  years  before  its  adoption  in  England.  It  is 
both  the  normal  and  the  historic  condition  of  American 
trade.  We  shall  return  to  it  at  no  distant  day. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


SOME   FURTHER   CONSIDERATIONS. 
I. 

RADE  is  not  a  crime.  Exchange  violates  no 
ethical  principle.  Smuggling  is  an  offence 
which  has  no  moral  basis,  but  is  solely  a  legal 
creation.  The  tariff  created  this  crime.  Under 
absolute  free  trade  it  could  have  no  existence,  and  under  a 
low  revenue  tariff  it  would  be  reduced  to  a  minimum. 
Custom-house  officers  know  how  common  smuggling  is, 
not  usually  by  the  unloading  of  a  cargo  under  shelter  of  a 
dark  night,  with  shaded  lanterns,  on  some  lonely  cove,  but- 
the  stealthy  slipping  in  of  taxable  diamonds,  laces,  silks, 
pictures,  jewelry,  clothing,  and  the  thousand  and  one  arti- 
cles which  "  the  intelligent  tourist "  likes  to  bring  with  him 
from  foreign  lands.  In  fact,  a  protective  tax  is  so  far  con- 
trary to  the  instincts  and  the  conscience  of  our  people  that 
its  requirements  are  often  systematically  evaded,  should  an 
opportunity  offer.  It  thus  tempts  to  violation  of  law. 

II.  Let  us  look  at  the  nature  of  that  annex  to  the  pro- 
tective system,  known  as  "  drawbacks."  What  is  a  draw- 
back ?  It  is  a  cash  payment  directly  from  the  treasury  to 
an  exporter  in  order  to  refund  to  him  the  outlay  he  was 


SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  233 

subjected  to  by  reason  of  the  import  tax  on  the  raw 
material  he  has  used  in  the  making  of  the  goods  he  now 
exports. 

What  does  this  signify?  i.  It  means  that  we  propose 
not  only  to  protect  the  home  market  of  certain  producers, 
but  to  ask  the  people  to  recoup  them  for  losses  when  they 
sell  in  a  foreign  one.  2.  It  is  an  attempt  by  a  crude  de- 
vice to  escape  from  the  effect  of  protection  and  yet  retain 
the  system,  —  to  make  exportation  possible  by  the  use  of 
the  people's  money.  3.  A  dollar  collected  as  revenue 
protects  one  man  when  it  is  paid  into  the  treasury,  and 
another  man  when  it  is  taken  out  and  handed  to  the  ex- 
porter. 4.  It  makes  our  manufactures  cheap  to  foreigners, 
but  keeps  them  dear  to  ourselves.  5 .  It  breaks  faith  with 
the  people  by  taking  the  money  they  have  honestly  paid  as 
revenue  and  passing  it  over  to  individuals.  Thus  they  are 
pouring  into  a  sieve,  or  paying  into  a  bottomless  till.  Was 
ever  a  patient  and  submissive  people  so  played  upon  by  the 
tricks  of  the  crafty  under  legal  forms  ? 

III.  Nothing  is  more  observable  in  the  writings  of  pro- 
tectionists than  that  they  shun  all  close  analysis  of  the  inner 
and  real  nature  of  trade.  They  show  a  singular  unwilling- 
ness to  begin  at  the  beginning ;  to  lay  down  general  princi- 
ples and  apply  individual  instances  to  them ;  and  to  go 
steadily  and  logically  onward  through  the  more  intricate 
parts  of  the  subject.  Every  one  who  has  listened  to  cam- 
paign orators  must  be  a  witness  that  the  tariff-talk  of  pro- 
tectionists is,  for  the  most  part,  a  succession  of  assertions, 
half  truths,  irrelevant  facts,  and  illogical  deductions.  It  is 
a  hap-hazard,  hop-skip-and-jump  argument.  This  marked 
deficiency  is  doing  much  to  bring  discredit  upon  both  the 
dicta  and  the  practice  of  protection  with  that  thoughtful 
class  who  wish  to  see  the  conclusion  when  it  is  arrived  at. 


234  JS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

The  schoolboy  in  the  geometry  class  is  not  the  only  one 
who  says,  "  quod  erat  demonstrandum"  before  he  has 
made  his  "  therefore  "  apparent. 

IV.  Many  persons  who  condemn  the  practice  of  pro- 
tection lend  their  approval  to  what  is  termed  "incidental 
protection."     It   is   argued   that   since   direct  taxation  is 
not  contemplated,  a  tariff  is  necessary  to  secure  government 
revenue.     This  is  correct.     It  is  inferred  that  it  will  not  be 
possible  to  avoid  some  measure  of  protection.     But  the 
scheme  of  national  taxation  in  England,  already  referred  to, 
shows  that  this  is  a  mistake,  and  that  it  is  as  possible  for 
our  Government  as  the  British  to  derive  sufficient  revenue, 
though  we  should  totally  abandon  protection  both  in  prin- 
ciple and  in  fact,  — both  as  an  essence  and  as  an  incident. 

Incidental  protection  is  only  less  harmful  than  essential 
protection.  If  protection  is  bad,  this  residue  of  the  system 
can  not  be  good.  To  favor  it  is  a  confession  on  the  part 
of  free-traders  that  the  real  nature  of  protection  is  not 
wrong,  but  only  that  its  excessive  application  works  mis- 
chief. It  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  consistent  advocate  of 
freedom  in  trade  can  favor  this  hybrid  growth  called 
"  incidental  protection." 

V.  What  is  the  real  significance  of  reciprocity  as  it  has 
been  practised  by  us  ?     It  is  often  welcomed  by  free-traders 
as  being  a  recognition  of  their  principles.     It  is  frequently 
advocated  by  protectionists,  though  to  do  so  is  a  confes- 
sion that  their  system  is  at  least  questionable  in  theory  and 
in  fact. 

Treaties  of  reciprocity  appear  on  the  surface  to  be  in  the 
nature  of  a  compromise.  They  are,  in  fact,  artful  schemes 
of  protectionists  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  revenue  re- 
formers, and  at  the  same  time  answer  the  ends  of  protec- 


7-S-  PROTECTION-  A   BENEFIT?  235 

tion.  Secondarily,  they  are  quieting  sops  thrown  to  free- 
traders; but,  primarily,  the  purpose  is  either  to  enable 
some  powerful  industry  to  obtain  its  raw  material  without 
paying  an  import  duty  upon  it,  or  else  to  so  reduce  the 
revenue  that  room  may  be  left  for  high  protection  to  pre- 
vail in  those  industries  which  by  means  of  an  influential 
lobby  hold  the  ear  of  Congress.  It  is  believed  that  all  the 
propositions  of  reciprocity  which  have  ever  been  seriously  en- 
tertained at  Washington,  have  had  one  or  both  of  these  two 
things  as  their  real  though  secret  motive.  Reciprocity,  there- 
fore, while  a  step  toward  free  trade,  is  a  time-serving  artifice 
favored  by  protectionists  in  the  interests  of  their  system. 

VI.  To  endeavor  to  obtain  a  government  monopoly  in 
the  form  of  protective  duties,  is  a  confession  of  weakness 
and  cowardice  in  any  industry.  The  business  that  must 
be  supported  by  the  oppression  of  laboring  men  or  sus- 
tained by  subsidies  forced  out  of  unwilling  tax-payers,  ought 
to  fail ;  and  the  corporation  that  has  not  the  ability  to  suc- 
ceed with  healthy  competition,  ought  not  to  exist.  The 
Darwinian  principle,  "  the  survival  of  the  fittest,"  ought  to 
apply  in  the  industrial  world,  whether  it  be  true  in  the 
animate  world  or  not. 

On  July  4  we  boast  that  we  have  the  grandest  and  most 
favored  land  on  the  planet.  The  doctrinaires  of  protection 
do  not  appear  to  think  so.  They  are  continually  remind- 
ing us  that  other  nations  have  better  facilities  than  our  own. 
It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  protectionists  that  it 
does  not  comport  with  the  dignity  and  independence  of 
Americans  to  be  continual  suppliants  for  charity.  Tramps, 
beggars,  and  paupers  may  live  upon  the  unrequited  of- 
fices of  others ;  but  it  should  bring  the  blush  of  shame  to 
the  great  industries  of  the  United  States  to  appear  before 
the  people  and  Congress  with  the  pretexts,  the  arts,  and  the 


236  751  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

importunities  of  a  mendicant.  It  is  one  of  the  anomalies 
of  the  age  that  while  all  farmers,  all  laborers,  all  profes- 
sional men,  and  all  those  engaged  in  handicrafts  are  able 
to  support  themselves  and  pay  their  dues  to  Government, 
the  wealthy  manufacturers  are  willing  and  anxious  to 
accept  charity  from  the  pockets  of  their  countrymen. 
While  most  men  delight  in  meeting  and  surmounting  diffi- 
culties, they  feel  no  hesitation  in  assuming  the  role  of 
paupers.  Without  even  claiming  to  have  rendered  a  com- 
pensating service,  they  are  willing  that  their  industries 
shall  stand  upon  the  pension-rolls  of  the  Government. 

VII.  An  examination  of  the  official  records  of  the  Govern- 
ment respecting  the  receipts  at  our  custom-houses  and 
the  expense  of  maintaining  them,  reveals  some  remark- 
able things. 

Charles  H.  Evans,  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  has  prepared 
for  the  Government  an  elaborate  statistical  volume  compiled 
from  the  official  Annual  Reports  of  Commerce  and  Navi- 
gation, entitled,  "  Imports  and  Duties :  1867  to  1884." 
This  volume  was  issued  from  the  Government  Printing 
Office  in  1884,  and  is  sent  out  as  a  public  document  under 
our  franking  law  all  over  the  country.  From  this  book  (see 
pages  573  to  615),  the  following  facts  are  gleaned  :  — 

At  our  principal  port  of  entry,  New  York,  the  average 
expense  of  collecting  the  import  duties  during  the  last  ten 
years  was  only  2.24  per  cent  of  the  amount  collected.  No 
one  would  say  that  this  is  out  of  due  proportion.  But  in  48 
per  cent  of  our  one  hundred  and  forty-two  custom-houses, 
during  a  term  of  ten  years  ending  in  1883,  the  total  re- 
ceipts were  actually  less  in  amount  than  the  expense  of 
collection. 

To  specify:  In  1874  the  customs  district  of  Alaska  col- 
lected $142.82,  at  an  expense  of  $14,149.  At  Alexandria, 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 


237 


Va.,  $13.73  was  collected  as  revenue  in  1882,  at  an  ex- 
pense of  $2,342.  At  Appalachicola,  Fla.,  in  1874,  the 
receipts  were  $4,  at  a  cost  of  $4,898.  At  Beaufort,  N.  C., 
in  1878,  the  total  receipts  were- $7.62,  while  the  expenses 
were  $1,393.  At  Dunkirk,  N.  Y.,  in  1883,  the  total  re- 
ceipts were  $2.50,  but  the  cost  of  collection  was  $3,375. 

But  this  state  of  affairs  is  not  confined  to  certain  excep- 
tional years.  The  record  is  the  same  when  we  consider 
the  average  of  years.  During  the  ten  years  between  1873 
and  1 884,  the  average  receipts  at  Barnstable,  Mass.,  were 
$43.10,  while  the  average  annual  cost  of  collection  was 
$7,865.  At  Nantucket,  Mass.,  average  receipts  $18.85  > 
average  expenses,  $1,616.  At  Vicksburg,  Miss.,  average 
receipts,  $75  ;  average  expenses,  $689.  At  York,  Me.,  re- 
ceipts, $3.02 ;  expenses,  $445.  At  Saco,  Me.,  the  total 
duty  received  during  the  ten  years  was  $56.22,  during 
which  time  $9,032  was  paid  as  the  cost  of  collection, — 
1 60  times  the  revenue. 

But  even  this  is  not  the  entire  record.  At  the  following 
custom-houses  not  a  single  dollar  has  been  received  in 
customs  during  the  last  ten  years,  while  the  revenue  posts 
were  steadily  maintained  at  the  average  annual  cost  as 
given  :  Annapolis,  Md.,  at  an  average  cost  of  $2,032  a  year ; 
Burlington,  N.  J.,  $296 ;  Eastern  District  of  Maryland, 
$3>336  j  Cherrystone,  Va.,  $2,996 ;  Little  Egg  Harbor, 
N.  J.,  $3,386;  Sag  Harbor,  N.  Y.,  $1,426;  Southern 
Oregon,  $2,642. 

Several  of  the  customs  districts  and  ports  of  delivery 
named  above  have  been  established  since  the  enactment  of 
the  Morrill  Tariff.  All  of  them  have  been  steadily  main- 
tained from  year  to  year  till  the  present  hour.  Not  a 
single  one  of  them,  at  this  writing,  has  been  abolished. 
Do  we  not  have  occasion  to  remember  the  trite  classical 
reference,  "  guarding  against  Scylla  and  plunging  into 


238  JS  PROTECTIOA?  A  BENEFIT? 

Charybdis"?  Do  we  not  at  once  think  of  the  homely 
aphorism,  "  saving  at  the  spigot  but  wasting  at  the  bung  "  ? 
Such  "penny  wisdom  and  pound  foolishness  "  might  occur 
under  any  tariff.  It  has  occurred  only  under  protection. 
It  comes  from  the  supposed  necessity  of  guarding  an  open 
coast,  not  to  collect  revenue,  but  to  enforce  protection. 

VIII.  For  a  quarter  of  a  century,  protection  has  been 
teaching  our  people,  and  especially  the  laborers,  that  wages 
can  be  regulated,  and  should  be  regulated,  by  law.  Analyze 
those  doctrines  of  protection  that  are  intended  for  wage- 
earners,  and  they  will  resolve  themselves  into  the  proposi- 
tion that  legislation  can  make  the  rewards  of  labor  high. 
This  is  the  very  teaching  upon  which  communism  rests 
If  our  laboring  people  have  accepted  this  lesson,  it  is  not 
strange  that  discontent  and  riots  should  follow  the  fall- 
ing wages  and  diminished  employment  which  protection 
causes.  If  protection  is  a  true  doctrine,  the  enforced  idle- 
ness, the  poverty,  the  famine  of  operatives,  is  far  more  than 
a  misfortune.  It  is  a  crime  and  an  outrage.  What  won- 
der that,  accepting  this  doctrine  and  smarting  under  wrongs 
which  they  have  no  power  to  correct,  the  employe's  of  pro- 
tected industries  should  rise  in  riot !  If  Government  has 
the  power  to  regulate  their  wages,  but  should  refuse  to 
exercise  it,  or  should  use  it  for  their  oppression,  it  is  not 
strange  that,  like  Samson,  they  should  push  with  the 
strength  of  a  giant  to  destroy  their  temple. 

In  this  day  when  labor  is  restive  and  public  discontent 
is  emphasizing  itself  by  violent  deeds  in  European  coun- 
tries, —  communism  in  France,  socialism  in  Germany,  nihil- 
ism in  Russia,  —  the  United  States  should  try  no  hazardous 
experiments.  This  is  the  era  of  dynamite.  Like  the 
nations  of  Europe  we  also  may  find  to  our  horror  that 
even  republics  are  not  at  an  infinite  remove  from  this 


7S  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  239 

dreadful  agent  of  revolution.  It  is  to-day  a  pertinent  in- 
quiry, How  far  is  our  fiscal  policy  responsible  for  the 
growing  disquietude  of  our  laboring  classes,  and  for  the 
threatening  cloud  of  revolution  which  already  rises,  like  a 
man's  hand,  in  our  horizon? 

IX.  One  of  the  surprising  features  of  the  talk  of  protec- 
tionists is  their  boast  that  their  system  of  taxation  has  been 
so  far  successful  that  we  are  now  able  to  export  our  pro- 
ducts largely  to  foreign  countries.  They  assure  us  that  we 
are  now  sending  our  steel  rails  to  Canada  in  competition 
with  the  English ;  that  we  sell  our  watches  in  Switzerland 
in  competition  with  the  products  of  Neuchatel  and  Geneva ; 
that  we  are  exporting  our  sewing  machines  to  Europe ; 
that  there  is  a  profitable  sale  of  our  agricultural  implements 
in  South  America  and  Australia ;  and  that  we  are  shipping 
our  cotton  fabrics  into  all  ports,  and  meeting  Manchester 
in  her  ancient  and  favorite  markets. 

Protectionists  continue  to  ring  all  the  changes  upon  this 
boast.  In  point  of  fact,  it  is  true  as  to  a  very  few  of  our 
industries  only.  But  what  does  it  really  mean  ? 

First.  It  implies  that  exportation  is  highly  desirable, 
and  that  the  sufficiency  of  "  the  home  market "  is  a  delu- 
sion and  a  fallacy.  This  is  the  very  thing  that  free-traders 
have  always  asserted  and  the  theory  of  protection  has  al- 
ways denied. 

Second.  It  shows  that  the  supreme  effort  of  protection- 
ists is  to  get  an  entrance  into  foreign  markets,  and  yet  save 
protection.  In  the  very  nature  of  things,  their  effort  must 
fail.  This  age  has  never  witnessed  a  more  sublime  absur- 
dity than  the  uniform  custom  of  clamoring  for  protection 
in  political  platforms  and  legislating  in  Congress  to  secure 
it,  and  yet  demanding  at  the  same  moment  a  more  enlarged 
trade  with  foreign  countries. 


240  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

Third.  It  necessarily  involves  the  confession  that  man- 
ufacturers are  willing  to  accept  from  a  foreign  purchaser  a 
lower  price  than  they  will  accept  from  their  own  country- 
men. Nearly  all  our  manufactured  exports  are  selling  in  the 
foreign  country  at  a  smaller  figure  than  the  market  price 
here.  Do  not  the  exporters  give  a  slap  in  the  face  to  the 
very  men  whose  votes  gave  them  their  bonus? 

Fourth.  It  makes  the  assertion  that  though  the  effect  of 
protection  is  to  prevent  exports,  we  are  yet  surmounting 
this  objection  to  the  system.  It  says  that  after  a  quarter 
of  a  century  we  are  beginning  to  reap  the  benefits  of  free 
trade  while  we  yet  carry  the  burdens  of  protection.  It  is 
a  shout  of  hallelujah  because  we  are  now  getting  what  we 
might  have  had  all  these  years. 

Fifth.  The  boast  is  a  dangerous  boomerang  in  the  hands 
of  the  protectionists.  Like  the  arrows  of  the  Parthians,  it 
returns  upon  their  own  heads.  If  it  is  true  that  protection 
has  enabled  us  to  export  our  goods  to  foreign  markets,  the 
system  has  made  itself  no  longer  necessary.  It  has  borne 
its  fruit  and  is  ready  to  die.  Let  the  fact  be  established 
that  we  can  export  our  finished  products  to  the  outlying 
world,  and  the  chief  argumentative  defences  of  protection 
are  gone.  Its  friends  are  left  naked  to  their  enemies. 

X.  In  these  years  protection  is  bearing  what  we  shall 
hope  is  its  last  and  maturest  fruit,  —  the  forced  limitation 
of  production.  The  steps  to  this  end  are  plain  :  — 

First.  Those  selfishly  interested  in  the  promotion  of  a 
given  industry  constitute  a  clamorous  and  influential  con- 
gressional lobby  in  the  committee  rooms  and  on  the  floor, 
dictating  to  members  the  course  legislation  shall  take. 

Second.  Through  log-rolling  combination  of  votes  the 
measure  passes,  inspired  more  by  this  dictation  than  by  the 
public  necessities. 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 


241 


Third.  The  promise  of  excessive  profits  thrills  the  busi- 
ness into  activity  all  over  the  country,  and  labor  is  called 
from  those  pursuits  naturally  profitable  into  the  one  now 
made  artificially  so. 

Fourth.  Production  is  increased  beyond  the  public 
demand,  but  the  high  prices  which  prevail  prevent  exporta- 
tion to  other  markets,  and  our  own  is  congested  with  pro- 
ducts the  people  will  not  buy  at  the  inflated  prices. 

Fifth.  Depression  follows  activity.  All  revenue  is  cut 
off.  Prices  fall  to  find  markets,  and  wages  are  reduced  to 
leave  the  margin  of  profits  intact. 

Sixth.  Laborers  become  restive  and  go  out  on  strikes. 
Proprietors  order  lock-outs  or  run  on  short  time.  The  one 
class  combine  to  resist  falling  wages  by  strikes,  and  the 
other  to  prevent  falling  prices  by  limiting  production. 

These  are  the  natural,  necessary  fruits  of  a  system  of  favor- 
itism miscalled  protection.  Over-production  is  one  of  the 
loudest  cries  of  our  time ;  and  yet  we  have  the  same  kind 
of  destitution  among  the  people  as  though  the  country  were 
as  sterile  as  Sahara  or  as  bleak  as  Labrador.  With  capaci- 
ties for  much  larger  consumption  and  with  endless  desires 
unsatisfied,  millions  of  people  are  unable  to  reach  the  good 
things  stored  up  in  the  bursting  storehouses  of  production. 

When  the  Dutch  had  control  of  the  Moluccas  it  was 
their  custom  to  burn  a  portion  of  their  spices,  so  as  to  con- 
trol the  price  in  Europe,  and  thus  secure  such  profits  as 
were  satisfactory.  We  resort  to  the  less  wasteful  method 
of  holding  production  in  check.  By  a  concerted  move- 
ment, by  trusts  and  combinations,  in  all  parts  of  the  coun- 
try, consumption  remains  unchecked,  while  production  is 
reduced  or  has  ceased.  Thus  the  plethora  is  relieved,  a 
scarcity  is  created,  and  prices  are  raised  or  sustained  to  the 
injury  of  all  consumers.  The  mills  start  again  when  it  is 
seen  that  satisfactory  profits  can  be  realized. 

16 


242  S-S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

Congress  exercised  the  function  of  limiting  importation, 
but  combinations  of  our  own  citizens  for  selfish  ends  pre- 
sume to  graduate  and  manipulate  production.  Manufac- 
turers who  were  modest  enough  in  the  past  to  ask  only  the 
exclusion  of 'foreign  goods  and  the  monopoly  of  our  mar- 
ket, have  now  the  boldness  to  escape  from  the  effects  of  the 
system  they  invoked  by  a  wrong  to  their  countrymen.  In 
one  decade  they  ask  the  votes  of  the  people  to  make  their 
business  possible ;  in  the  next  they  make  a  deliberate 
thrust  at  the  man  who  deposited  the  ballot. 

Competition  can  not  beat  prices  so  low  in  any  legitimate 
business  as  to  reduce  profits  below  a  reasonable  figure.  It 
appears,  however,  that  those  so  long  accustomed  to  exces- 
sive profits  are  not  to  be  satisfied  with  a  modest  gain.  It 
is  bad  enough  for  the  Government  to  dictate  prices  by  a 
protective  tariff,  but  that  selfish  men  should  do  so  by  call- 
ing a  halt  in  production,  is  intolerable.  It  would  seem 
that  those  things  so  vital  to  the  welfare  of  the  country  as 
prices,  wages,  employment,  production,  and  the  interests  of 
the  consuming  millions,  are  to  be  manipulated  with  that 
ease  with  which  the  puppet  is  made  to  respond  to  the  com- 
mands of  the  magician,  or  moves  are  made  with  "  the 
titular  dignitaries  of  the  chessboard." 

XL  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  "builded  better 
than  they  knew."  Not  to  have  said  a  word  in  our  funda- 
mental law  which  could  give  any  sanction  to  protection, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  have  secured  absolute  free  trade 
throughout  all  the  land,  —  this  shows  the  profoundest 
political  and  economic  wisdom.  The  United  States  is,  in 
fact,  the  great  free-trade  nation  of  the  world  —  ideal  and 
absolute  free  trade  among  thirty-eight  States  and  eleven 
Territories.  Large  States,  like  New  York,  trade  beneficially 
and  freely  with  small  ones,  like  Connecticut ;  old  ones,  like 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  243 

Massachusetts,  with  new  ones,  like  Nebraska ;  States  rely- 
ing on  one  industry,  like  Nevada,  with  those  of  diversified 
occupations,  like  Ohio ;  States  pursuing  different  industries, 
as  Maine  and  Louisiana ;  States  pursuing  the  same  indus- 
tries, as  Illinois  and  Iowa. 

The  wisdom  and  benefits  of  this  provision  have  never 
been  questioned.  Even  protectionists  admire  this  inter- 
state free  trade.  In  1 884  a  prominent  presidential  candi- 
date, in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  while  praising  the  protective 
policy,  used  this  strangely  paradoxical  language :  "  In 
addition  to  the  advantages  which  the  American  people 
enjoy  from  protection  against  foreign  competition,  they 
enjoy  the  advantages  of  absolute  free  trade  over  a  larger 
area  and  with  a  greater  population  than  any  other  nation." 

Can  any  one  suggest  a  single  truly  valid  reason  why  free 
trade  is  such  a  blessing  between  the  States,  but  such  a 
calamity  between  the  nations  ?  Is  there  a  single  plea  made 
in  favor  of  national  protection  that  can  not  be  applied  with 
equal  or  stronger  force  in  favor  of  State  protection?  If  the 
United  States  suffer  loss  from  the  "  invasion  "  of  the  iron 
products  of  England,  the  furnaces  of  Missouri  suffer  loss 
from  the  "  invasion  "  of  the  iron  products  of  Pennsylvania. 
If  America  be  benefited  by  the  exclusion  of  silk  from 
France,  Connecticut  will  be  benefited  by  the  exclusion  of 
the  silk  from  New  Jersey.  Illinois  should  forbid  the  wheat 
from  Minnesota,  and  rejoice  when  the  explosion  of  mill- 
dust  destroys  the  giant  mills  at  Minneapolis.  Iowa  should 
veto  the  transport  of  lead  ore  across  the  river  at  Galena. 
The  pine  lumber  from  Michigan  "  inundates  "  Indiana,  to 
the  stagnation  of  her  business  in  oak  lumber.  Colorado 
should  prohibit  Kansas  corn,  lest  the  raising  of  grain  on 
fertile  prairies  should  ruin  her  system  of  agriculture  by 
means  of  irrigation.  If  it  is  necessary  for  New  England  to 
institute  a  rigid  quarantine  against  old  England,  is  it  not 


244  fs  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

still  more  necessary  for  the  "  infant  "  industries  of  the  West 
to  raise  a  wall  against  the  established  industries  of  the 
East?  If  an  illustration  is  needed  to  show  how  a  fortu- 
nately situated  nation  can  prostrate  the  industries  of  one 
less  fortunate,  there  is  small  occasion  to  look  among  foreign 
countries.  No  stronger  can  be  adduced  than  between  the 
States  of  the  Union.  But  if  it  is  conceded,  as  all  protec- 
tionists do  concede,  that  our  States  have  not  only  met  this 
competition  of  their  neighbors  without  loss,  but  have  actu- 
ally grown  rich  because  of  it,  how  small  should  be  our  fear 
of  the  competition  of  countries  beyond  the  sea,  and  how 
cordially  should  we  welcome  their  exchanges  in  order  to 
enrich  ourselves  ! 

It  has  been  argued  that  interstate  free  trade  is  beneficial 
because  the  States  are  neighbors,  while  international  free 
trade  is  harmful,  because  the  parties  are  strangers  and  for- 
eigners. What  does  this  mean?  It  implies  that  Maine 
may  trade  freely  with  California,  four  thousand  miles  away, 
but  that  Detroit  must  not  exchange  goods  across  the  river 
with  Windsor,  half  a  mile  distant,  nor  Buffalo  across  the 
lake  with  Toronto.  The  people  of  the  State  of  New  York 
may  trade  freely  across  the  Hudson  with  their  neighbors 
of  New  Jersey,  but  not  across  the  St.  Lawrence  with  the 
foreigners  of  Canada. 

But  the  chief  and  almost  the  only  plea  advanced  for  in- 
terstate free  trade  and  international  protection,  is  that  in 
the  one  case  the  States  are  parts  of  the  same  government, 
and  in  the  other  case  they  are  different  governments.  But 
this  is  stating  a  fact,  not  giving  a  reason.  How  can  the 
mere  truth  that  there  is  a  bond  of  political  connection  in 
the  one  case  and  none  in  the  other,  be  a  good  reason  why 
systems  of  trade  so  directly  contradictory  should  prevail  in 
the  same  government  ?  Does  trade  have  geographical  lines  ? 
Would  it  not  be  just  as  reasonable  to  draw  lines  of  dis- 


7S  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT!  245 

tinction  upon  race,  color,  language,  or  religion?  The  mere 
accident  that  Maine  and  California  both  send  their  repre- 
sentatives to  Washington  can  have  no  relevancy  in  a  purely 
commercial  and  economic  question  like  this.  If  they  are 
benefited  by  unrestricted  trade  to-day,  they  would  be  ben- 
efited no  less  if  the  political  tie  were  severed  to-morrow. 
No  one  has  ever  tried  to  give  a  truly  valid  reason  why  free 
trade  with  Texas  has  been  a  public  benefit  since  its  annex- 
ation in  1845,  but  a  public  calamity  while  it  was  yet  a  part 
of  Mexico.  President  Grant  wished  to  buy  San  Domingo 
in  order  that  we  might  have  the  benefits  of  free  trade  with 
it.  Has  it  not  occurred  to  thousands  of  minds  that  we 
might  have  all  these  benefits,  and  yet  keep  our  money? 
Is  the  mere  fact  of  political  connection  such  a  necessity 
that  we  should  pay  millions  to  secure  open  trade  with  the 
Black  Republic?  Why  not  write  a  treaty  and  vote  its 
adoption  ?  It  has  been  seriously  proposed  that  we  should 
pay  thirty  million  dollars  for  Cuba,  in  order  that  we  may  get 
its  sugar  without  paying  duty  upon  it.  Will  some  political 
philosopher  at  Washington  or  elsewhere  rise  and  explain 
how  the  competition  of  Cuban  sugar  will  ruin  Louisiana 
until  the  moment  when  the  deed  in  fee  simple  to  that 
island  is  signed  and  sealed,  but  that  it  would  prove  a  bless- 
ing after  that  little  formality? 

If  international  protection  be  a  benefit,  so  is  interstate 
protection ;  and  the  States  under  the  Confederation  in  set- 
ting up  custom-houses  along  their  little  frontiers  were  more 
logical  than  the  States  under  the  Constitution.  Consistency 
would  require  that  we  should  either  abandon  national  pro- 
tection or  adopt  interstate  exclusion.  When  Napoleon  sub- 
jected half  of  Western  Europe  to  his  sway,  he  abolished 
the  custom-houses  which  stood  on  the  frontiers  of  the 
States  thus  conquered.  But  after  Waterloo,  when  his  em- 
pire fell  apart  like  a  rope  of  sand,  the  toll-barriers  shot  up 


246  SS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

again  along  all  the  borders  of  the  petty  principalities.  As 
parts  of  a  coherent  empire,  they  could  afford  to  reap  the 
benefits  of  free  trade ;  but  as  separate  sovereignties,  they 
felt  compelled  to  sacrifice  its  blessings  in  order  to  injure 
their  neighbors,  or  to  hand  over  gratuities  to  a  few  of  their 
citizens.  We  are  no  wiser  than  they. 

Having  tasted  under  the  Confederation  the  bitterness  of 
interstate  protection,  and  having  verified  under  the  Con- 
stitution the  benefits  of  unfettered  commerce  among  our- 
selves, let  us  carry  our  experience  to  the  logical  limit  of 
adopting  on  behalf  of  the  general  advantage  as  large  a 
degree  of  free  trade  with  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  as  the 
public  revenues  will  permit. 

XII.  But  he  that  objects  to  existing  institutions  may, 
with  the  utmost  propriety,  be  called  upon  to  suggest,  at 
least  in  a  general  way,  something  which  would  be  better. 
Free-traders  are  ready  to  meet  this  demand.  The  problem 
of  taxation  is  simple  enough  in  its  general  principles,  but 
one  of  the  most  complicated  in  its  details.  It  is,  however, 
greatly  simplified  the  moment  legislation  has  decided  to 
abandon  the  paternal  function  and  the  attempt  to  foster 
any  branch  of  industry  by  special  enactment. 

Free-traders  therefore  insist,  first,  that  protection  as  a 
practice  shall  be  discarded,  and  that  all  industries  be  left 
on  that  plane  where  most  of  them  must  of  necessity  stand, 
that  of  self-help  and  independence. 

Second.  That  fiscal  legislation  shall  look,  so  far  as  taxa- 
tion is  concerned,  solely  to  the  getting  of  money  into 
the  treasury  to  meet  the  legitimate  expenses  of  the 
Government.  No  dollar  shall  be  exacted  for  any  other 
purpose. 

Third.  That  the  taxes  on  imports  shall  be  relatively  low, 
both  with  a  view  of  making  the  burdens  of  the  people 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  247 

as  light  as  possible,  and  also  of  creating  only  sufficient 
revenues. 

Fourth.  That  the  tariff-taxes  shall  be  placed  upon  com- 
paratively a  few  articles  only,  so  as  to  disturb  the  natural 
range  of  prices  as  slightly  as  possible. 

Fifth.  That  all  compound,  minimum,  and  specific  duties 
shall  be  abolished,  and  ad  valorem  duties  substituted,  with 
the  view  of  divesting  the  tariff  of  its  complexity  and  those 
devices  which  may  afford  a  convenient  shelter  for  fraud, 
evasion,  and  jobbery. 

Sixth.  That  the  duty  shall  be  so  imposed  as  to  operate 
with  impartiality  throughout  the  Union,  discriminating 
neither  in  favor  of  nor  against  any  section  or  any  interest. 

Seventh.  That  the  taxes  shall  be  placed  upon  articles 
not  produced,  or  not  produced  to  much  extent  in  this 
country ;  to  the  end  that  all  the  artificial  increase  in  price 
which  necessarily  results  from  a  tariff  may  pass  into  the 
treasury  and  none  of  it  into  private  tills. 

Eighth.  That  an  excise,  or  internal  tax,  be  judiciously 
laid  on  those  articles  of  domestic  production  which  have 
received  an  incidental  protection,  to  the  end  that  they 
may  stand  upon  an  even  plane  of  advantage  with  all  other 
industries. 

Ninth.  That  the  highest  duties  be  levied  upon  articles  of 
luxury  and  upon  those  of  the  more  expensive  qualities, 
and  that  the  lowest  duties  be  laid  upon  articles  of  necessity 
and  upon  those  of  coarser  and  commoner  qualities,  to  the 
end  that  both  the  rich  and  the  poor  may  be  required,  so 
far  as  is  possible,  to  contribute  revenue  to  the  Government 
in  proportion  to  the  benefits  which  they  receive  from  it, 
and  to  their  respective  abilities. 

Tenth.  That  taxes  be  so  reduced  from  time  to  time  that 
no  vast  surplus  shall  be  allowed  to  accumulate  in  the  treas- 
ury ;  and  that  collections  shall  not  long  precede  disburse- 


248  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

ments,  to  the  end  that  the  people  may  be  the  guardians  of 
their  own  money,  that  extravagant  appropriations  may  cease, 
and  that  legislative  jobbery  may  be  discouraged. 

Of  course  this  is  radical  reform.  It  is  the  contrary  of 
protection  at  every  point.  Most  free-traders  do  not  demand 
that  it  shall  be  adopted  with  that  convulsing  suddenness 
which  marked  the  abolition  of  protection  in  England.  It 
is  hoped  that  it  may  not  be  necessary  in  America,  as  it  was 
in  Great  Britain,  to  resort  to  a  fiscal  revolution  in  order  to 
avoid  a  social  one.  Perhaps  it  may  not  be  best  to  destroy 
the  evils  of  protection  by  one  radical  stroke  of  legislation. 
If  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  with  clearness  that  a  tempo- 
rizing policy  is  best  for  the  nation,  free-traders  demand 
only  that  the  reform  shall  be  adopted  as  rapidly  as  the 
country  can  adjust  itself  to  the  changed  conditions. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  reform  as  contemplated 
by  free-traders  agrees,  so  far  as  tariff  duties  can  be  made 
to  agree,  with  the  four  fundamental  maxims  of  taxation  laid 
down  by  Adam  Smith,  and  which  have  become  classical. 
First,  that  all  persons  should  contribute  to  the  support  of 
the  Government  in  proportion  to  their  respective  abilities. 
Second,  that  the  amount  of  the  tax  should  be  known,  def- 
inite, and  not  arbitrary,  incalculable,  or  changeable.  Third, 
that  every  tax  shall  be  levied  in  the  manner  and  at  the  time 
most  convenient  for  payment.  Fourth,  that  the  tax  shall 
exceed  by  as  small  an  amount  as  possible  the  sum  which 
actually  reaches  the  treasury.  The  correctness  of  these 
principles  has  never  been  disputed.  They  are,  in  fact, 
merely  the  formulation  of  universal  opinions,  as  are  the 
Ten  Commandments  and  the  Golden  Rule. 


CHAPTER   XX. 


PLEAS  BEFORE  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND 
MEANS  —  AN  EXTRAVAGANZA. 


HE  Chairman  called  the  Committee  to  order,  and 
then  instructed  the  Clerk  to  read  the  minutes  of 
the  last  meeting.  He  proceeded  as  follows  :  — 


WASHINGTON,  Feb.  20, 188 — . 

The  Committee  of  the  House  on  Ways  and  Means  met 
pursuant  to  adjournment.  All  the  members  were  present, 
except  Messrs.  Favorite,  Equity,  and  Partial. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Flood,  the  committee  took  up  the 
special  order  for  the  evening,  being  the  consideration  of 
House  File  No.  1,001,  —  "A  Bill  for  an  Act  to  Revise 
the  Tariff,  to  Abolish  Poverty,  and  to  Promote  Universal 
Wealth." 

The  Committee  being  informed  that  several  gentlemen 
wished  to  present  pleas  on  the  Bill,  it  was  ordered,  on  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  Subsidy,  that  they  be  heard  at  this  sitting. 

Mr.  Stannvir  was  then  introduced,  who  spoke  as 
follows :  — 

Honorable  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee :  I  gratefully 
appreciate  the  opportunity  accorded  me  of  addressing  you 
at  a  time  when  a  measure  so  intimately  affecting  the  welfare 
of  the  country  is  resting  in  your  hands.  A  national  Act  for 


250  /S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

the  effective  revision  of  the  tariff,  so  as  to  usher  in  the 
millennium  of  individual  and  universal  wealth,  is  so  impera- 
tively demanded,  and  withal  a  matter  of  such  difficulty, 
that  it  will,  doubtless,  claim  your  maturest  deliberation. 

I  am  the  sole  proprietor  of  a  tin  mine  in  the  State  of 
Utopia,  and  I  appear  before  you  to  make  a  few  representa- 
tions respecting  my  industry.  My  tin  mine  is  the  only  one 
in  the  United  States,  and  it  is  but  just  discovered.  I  am 
now  about  developing  an  infant  industry.  As  the  law  now 
stands,  tin  in  the  ore,  in  bars,  in  blocks,  in  grains,  and  in 
pigs,  is  imported  free  of  duty  from  Cornwall,  Banca,  Ma- 
lacca, and  Australia.  The  result  is  that  the  metal  is  ruin- 
ously low  in  price,  and  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  I  should 
compete  with  the  old  and  well-established  mines  of  Wales. 
They  are  now  flooding  this  country  with  their  foreign  prod- 
ucts to  the  extent  of  $16,000,000  a  year. 

It  is  the  true  policy  to  protect  every  one  of  our  indus- 
tries from  destructive  foreign  competition,  and  especially 
infant  ones  as  mine.  My  mine  is  not  rich  either  in  the 
quality  or  in  the  quantity  of  its  ores.  It  is  also  far  inland, 
difficult  of  access,  and  continually  flooded  with  water.  As 
a  result,  while  the  English  tin  is  sold  to-day  in  our  markets 
at  eight  cents  a  pound,  my  product  can  not  be  put  on  sale 
at  less  than  ninety-four  cents  a  pound.  I  therefore  ask 
that  an  import  tax  of  eighty-six  cents  be  placed  on  the 
foreign  article.  This  will  enable  me  to  compete  on  terms 
of  perfect  equality.  America  can  not  afford  to  be  depend- 
ent upon  our  ancient  enemy  for  an  article  of  such  prime 
necessity  as  tin. 

If  my  petition  be  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  would 
have  the  effect  to  raise  the  price  of  tin  to  all  purchasers 
more  than  one  thousand  per  cent,  it  might  be  replied  that 
in  addition  to  the  development  of  our  "  inexhaustible 
mountains,"  I  shall  give  employment  to  more  than  a  dozen 


fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  2$  I 

pack-mules,  and  a  score  of  men,  who  are  now  engaged  in 
the  overdone  business  of  raising  wheat  and  corn.  Besides 
this,  the  growth  of  my  business  will  give  a  stimulus  to  the 
manufacture  of  engines,  pick-axes,  and  blasting-powder.  A 
village  will  grow  up  about  the  base  of  the  mountain  where 
all  is  now  a  wilderness.  This  will  afford  a  market  at  home 
for  all  the  wheat,  corn,  and  live  stock  which  the  farmers  of 
the  valley  can  produce  on  their  rocky  and  irrigated  fields. 
Without  this,  their  products  would  be  nearly  worthless. 
It  is  plainly  to  the  interest  of  the  country  to  encourage  my 
industry.  The  increased  cost  of  tin  is  a  mere  bagatelle 
in  comparison  with  the  public  advantage. 

If  there  is  any  gentleman  of  the  Committee  who  might 
be  led  to  oppose  the  granting  of  my  prayer  on  the  ground 
that  the  protection  asked  for  would  give  me  excessive 
profits,  I  beg  him  to  remember  two  facts :  First,  that  even 
if  this  should  be  the  case  "  the  money  will  remain  in  the 
country,"  and  thus  the  aggregate  wealth  will  not  be  changed. 
Second,  that,  in  fact,  I  will  not  be  enriched  at  all.  The 
tax  no  more  than  represents  the  disadvantages  attending 
my  undeveloped  infant  industry.  It  simply  places  me  on 
the  same  level  of  advantage  that  is  enjoyed  by  the  design- 
ing foreigners  who  are  flooding  our  markets. 

As  before  remarked,  the  consumption  of  tin  in  this  coun- 
try is  about  $16,000,000  annually.  If  my  industry  shall 
meet  with  proper  encouragement,  I  expect  to  be  able  to 
displace  three-fourths  of  this  importation  by  my  own  prod- 
ucts. The  market  value  of  the  tin  of  annual  consumption 
will  then  amount  to  $188,000,000,  which  would  be  a  gain 
of  $i  72,000,000  yearly  in  the  national  wealth.  An  industry 
which  can  present  such  figures  as  these  may  well  claim  to 
be  of  national  importance. 

Trusting  that  you  will  find  my  appeal  to  be  in  the  line  of 
the  public  benefit,  I  thank  you. 


252  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

Thereupon  Mr.  Pinxit,  of  Chromopolis,  was  introduced, 
who  said  :  — 

Gentlemen  :  I  come  to  address  your  honorable  body  in 
behalf  of  an  ancient  industry.  I  am  a  portrait  painter,  and 
I  represent  the  Cosmic  Art  Society. 

Painting  as  a  fine  art  was  a  well-developed  industry  more 
than  two  thousand  years  ago.  It  is  not  an  infant.  But  we 
are  to-day  subjected  to  an  intolerable  competition  from  the 
prevalence  of  an  upstart  device,  known  as  photography. 
By  pressing  into  service  the  light  of  the  sun  and  the  laws 
of  optics,  and  facts  known  in  chemistry  —  in  a  word,  by 
some  hocus-pocus  —  certain  designing  men  have  been  able 
to  produce  superior  portraits  at  prices  so  ruinously  low  that 
the  very  existence  of  our  industry,  like  that  of  Demetrius 
the  silversmith,  is  endangered.  You  will  perceive  that  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  compete  when  these  laws  of  Nature  are 
forced  into  harness  to  work  against  us. 

We  therefore  ask  that  you  will  recommend  to  Congress 
that  a  duty  of  one  thousand  per  cent  be  levied  upon  all 
cameras,  lenses,  and  chemicals  imported  for  use  in  the  new 
and  hateful  business  known  as  photography ;  and  that  a 
stamp  duty  of  $10  be  placed  upon  each  sun-made  portrait. 
These  measures  will  so  raise  the  cost  of  producing  these 
now  cheap  goods,  that  our  venerable  industry  will  have 
scope  to  breathe  again. 

When  Benjamin  West  was  painting  portraits  a  century 
ago,  the  country  was  small  and  poor ;  but  now,  through  the 
influence  of  our  industry,  the  nation  has  become  the  might- 
iest on  earth.  We  think  that,  pointing  to  such  a  record, 
we  may  with  modesty  demand  the  ear  of  Congress. 

There  are  at  least  fifteen  million  people  in  the  United 
States  who  need  portraits.  All  this  business  was  once 
ours ;  and  if  prices  can  be  sufficiently  raised,  it  will  be 
ours  again.  We  invoke  the  aid  of  legislation  against  an 


fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  253 

upstart   business,  which   has   raised  the   absurd  claim  of 
being  art. 

Mr.  Hortiman,  being  then  introduced,  addressed  the 
Committee  as  follows  :  — 

Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  :  I  am  a  gardener  engaged 
in  supplying  fruits  and  vegetables  to  the  markets  of  Phila- 
delphia. My  farm  is  on  the  Delaware,  ten  miles  above  the 
city.  I  represent  twenty  gardeners  in  my  vicinity. 

Our  business  is  now  in  a  very  depressed  condition  by 
reason  of  the  ruinous  competition  to  which  we  are  sub- 
jected. Early  in  the  season,  by  the  expensive  use  of  hot- 
houses and  other  modern  appliances,  we  would  be  able  to 
sell  the  products  of  our  gardens  at  fair  profits,  but  for  the 
fact  that  the  railroads  import  early  vegetables  from  Rich- 
mond, Charleston,  and  Savannah,  where  the  sun  does  the 
work  of  our  hot-beds.  This  competition  of  the  southern 
gardeners  in  our  domestic  market  is  prostrating  to  us,  es- 
pecially when  ships  and  railroads  are  in  collusion  with  them 
to  effect  the  destruction  of  our  industry.  The  prices  of  our 
goods  are  ruinously  low  at  a  time  when  we  should  be 
realizing  a  handsome  profit.  The  foreign  cabbages  sell  at 
5  cents,  while  we  find  it  impossible  so  early  in  the  season 
to  produce  them  for  less  than  50  cents ;  asparagus,  which 
costs  us  70  cents  a  bunch,  retails  at  10 ;  early  beets,  which 
cost  us  60  cents  a  bunch,  sell  for  8 ;  and  strawberries,  on 
which  we  would  lose  money  at  $1.00  a  quart,  are  abundant 
at  15  cents. 

This  foreign  invasion  continues  with  fresh  arrivals  every 
morning,  until  the  middle  of  the  season,  when  we  are  left 
in  the  possession  of  a  market  so  reduced  in  price  as  to 
afford  us  nothing  more  than  a  reasonable  reward  for  our 
labor  and  capital.  Near  the  latter  end  of  the  season,  when 
we  might  expect  better  prices  to  prevail,  the  same  grades 


254  IS  PROTECTION'  A  BENEFIT? 

of  fruits  and  vegetables  begin  to  pour  in  upon  our  market 
in  a  prostrating  flood  from  New  York,  Albany,  and  Mon- 
treal, so  that  the  end  of  the  season  is  even  worse  than  the 
beginning. 

Now  we  can  not  compete  with  the  sun.  Foreigners  have 
the  advantage  over  us,  and  they  are  apparently  determined 
to  crush  out  our  industry.  We,  therefore,  ask  of  you  in 
the  revision  of  the  tariff  now  pending  to  place  for  the  en- 
couragement of  our  industry  a  tax  of  seven  hundred  per 
cent  upon  all  fruits  and  vegetables  imported  into  Pennsyl- 
vania. We  shall  then  be  able  to  reap  the  profits  to  which 
our  importance  as  metropolitan  gardeners  entitle  us. 

We  are  aware  that  the  objection  may  arise  that  Congress 
has  no  power  to  protect  the  industries  of  one  State  against 
those  of  another  State.  This  is  a  mere  technicality.  Pro- 
tection is  wise  in  principle,  and  you  should  have  the 
bravery  to  carry  it  out  to  its  logical  end.  The  early  vegeta- 
bles of  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas  are  a  thousand  times  as 
hateful  and  injurious  to  us  as  the  fruits  of  Mexico,  Panama, 
and  South  America.  Tropical  lands  can  not  harm  us  ;  but 
the  competition  of  our  own  countrymen  is  intolerable. 

We  hope  you  will  not  be  misled  by  the  sophistries  of  free- 
traders, who  may  represent  that  the  one  million  people  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia  will  be  wronged  by  the  rise  in 
prices  which  would  result  from  the  imposition  of  the  tax 
which  we  ask.  The  facts  are  all  the  other  way.  First, 
since  prices  will  be  higher,  the  increment  will  be  an  addi- 
tion to  the  wealth  of  the  city.  Second,  since  the  outlying 
cities  are  excluded,  the  money  will  remain  at  home.  Third, 
a  much  larger  amount  of  money  will  move  in  our  vegetable 
market  than  now  does,  which,  overflowing  into  other 
branches  of  business,  will  give  activity  to  all.  Fourth,  the 
extreme  difficulty  of  raising  vegetables  by  hot-house  cul- 
ture will  make  a  demand  for  labor,  and  we  shall  give 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  255 

profitable  employment  to  two  or  three  hundred  men  who 
are  now  no  better  employed  than  in  mining  coal,  cutting 
lumber,  or  even  operating  railroads  and  ships  which  bring 
the  odious  southern  products  to  our  markets. 

Besides  these  considerations,  it  may  be  said  that  all 
patriotic  people  will  cheerfully  submit,  and  esteem  it  a  privi- 
lege to  pay  eight  times  the  natural  price  of  their  vegetables, 
when  they  know  that  by  so  doing  they  are  maintaining 
home  enterprise  and  developing  domestic  resources. 

Relying  upon  the  inherent  justness  of  our  appeal,  I  wish 
you  good-night. 

Mr.  Theacult  then  came  forward  and  said  :  — 

Gentlemen,  I  am  the  proprietor  of  a  tea  plantation  in 
Tennessee. 

Heretofore  China  and  Japan  have  had  a  monopoly  in 
the  tea  trade  of  the  world.  America  has  been  dependent 
upon  these  heathen  celestials.  Such  dependence  is  repug- 
nant to  our  theories  of  government ;  and  we  can  not  pre- 
serve our  national  respect  so  long  as  we  tamely  submit  to  a 
foreign  monopoly. 

With  a  view  of  conferring  a  benefit  upon  my  country  by 
enabling  us  to  throw  off  this  foreign  dependence,  I  visited 
China  two  years  ago.  I  studied  carefully  the  climate, 
chemically  analyzed  the  soil,  and  observed  the  nature  of 
the  tea  plant  and  the  manner  of  its  cultivation  there.  I  am 
now  able  to  announce  that  on  my  plantation  on  the  moun- 
tain sides  of  east  Tennessee,  by  the  use  of  certain  chemical 
fertilizers,  and  by  the  distribution  of  hot-air  reservoirs  and 
fountains  of  water  at  proper  intervals  over  my  farm,  I  have 
so  closely  imitated  the  soil  and  climate  of  China,  that  tea 
may  henceforth  be  called  an  American  production. 

But  on  account  of  the  pauper  labor  of  China,  the  foreign 
article  may  be  laid  down  in  our  markets  at  fifty  cents  a 


256  fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

pound,  while  in  consequence  of  the  higher  price  of  labor 
and  the  expensive  machinery  necessary  for  the  creation  of 
suitable  climatic  conditions,  together  with  the  natural  pre- 
cariousness  of  the  industry  in  this  country,  tea  can  not  be 
produced  in  Tennessee  for  less  than  $50.00  a  pound.  I 
therefore  petition  that  a  specific  tax  of  $49.50  per  pound 
be  laid  on  foreign  tea  which  may  be  imported.  You  will 
readily  see  that  it  is  quite  impossible  for  me  to  compete 
with  the  pauper  and  heathen  goods  which  flood  our 
markets. 

The  granting  of  my  petition  will  result  in  great  advantage 
to  the  working  men  of  the  country,  since  I  can  pay  them 
better  wages  than  I  can  possibly  pay  now.  If  the  public 
welfare  should  demand  it,  I  can  import  a  ship-load  of 
native  and  experienced  laborers  direct  from  the  tea-farms 
of  China.  A  pauper  laborer  can  not  breathe  in  America. 
Thus  I  shall  do  my  part  in  promoting  that  diversity  of 
occupation  upon  which  our  prosperity  is  based. 

I  agree  with  you  that  the  producer  is  the  man  who 
should  have  the  attention  of  legislation.  He  adds  to  the 
national  wealth.  The  exchanger  is  an  enemy  of  his  country, 
since  he  imports  the  competing  products,  and  thus  does  his 
utmost  to  prostrate  our  domestic  industries.  The  consumer 
is  "not  worthy  of  attention.  His  sole  function  is  to  destroy 
what  others  have  produced.  Do  not  be  solicitous  for  the 
tea-drinkers.  They  will  never  see  the  tax.  Even  if  they 
do,  they  will  not  care  for  "a  cheap  tea-table,"  if  they  can 
but  help  along  a  new  industry.  They  will  approve  of  any 
policy  which  liberates  us  from  commercial  dependence 
upon  the  pagan  Mongolians. 

You  will  perceive  that  it  is  imperatively  demanded  that 
the  price  of  tea  be  raised  to  fifty  dollars  a  pound,  since  ^-fo 
of  its  cost  represents  the  labor  and  the  difficulty  which  are 
necessary  to  overcome  the  climatic  disadvantages  here,  but 


7S  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  257 

which  in  China  are  free  gifts  of  nature.  A  large  amount  of 
labor  will  thus  be  created,  which  is  one  of  the  good  aims  of 
the  protective  system.  It  is  also  the  very  business  of  pro- 
tection to  overcome  this  natural  disadvantage  by  requiring 
consumers  to  place  producers  upon  the  same  level  of  ad- 
vantage as  is  enjoyed  by  the  foreigner. 

Under  your  fostering  care  tea  culture  will  soon  become 
a  flourishing  industry  on  the  mountain  sides  of  Tennessee, 
and  prosperity  will  smile  where  is  now  a  howling  wilder- 
ness. 

Mr.  Lucifact,  a  capitalist  of  Minnesota,  of  the  firm  of 
Lucifact,  Thermogen,  &  Co.,  was  then  introduced,  who 
enlisted  close  attention  to  the  following  plea :  — 

Gentlemen :  The  Bill  upon  which  you  are  now  sitting  is 
one  of  vital  importance  to  the  country;  and  I  come  to 
speak  of  a  matter  in  which  the  entire  people  is  interested. 

That  distinguished  philosopher,  Dean  Swift,  suggested  in 
his  day  that  it  would  be  an  economy  of  national  importance 
if  some  cheap  method  could  be  discovered  of  extracting 
sunbeams  from  cucumbers.  It  is,  as  you  are  aware,  a 
scientific  fact  that  large  amounts  of  light  and  heat  are  stored 
up  in  this  vegetable  during  the  summer.  The  problem  is 
so  to  extract  and  utilize  these  forces  that  they  may  be  made 
to  minister  to  the  health  and  comfort  of  our  people  in  the 
winter  and  during  the  night. 

It  was  reserved  for  this  decade  to  witness  the  solution  of 
this  great  problem.  It  is  with  some  feelings  of  triumph 
and  of  congratulation  toward  the  country  that  I  am  now 
able  to  announce  that,  aided  by  the  present  advanced  state 
of  science,  I  have  invented  and  constructed  machinery 
which  will  accomplish  this  great  desideratum. 

A  giant  stock  company  has  been  formed  at  St.  Paul  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  enterprise.  The  work  is  being 

17 


258  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT  1 

pushed  with  the  utmost  vigor.  The  buildings  will  cover  an 
area  of  120  acres,  and  cost  $17,000,000.  In  addition  to 
this,  the  company  owns  10,000,000  acres  of  fine  garden 
lands  on  the  Rio  Grande,  in  Texas.  This  is  now  being 
put  in  cultivation  for  the  reception  of  our  mammoth  crop 
of  cucumbers  next  season.  Thus,  as  a  true  policy  and 
economy  would  dictate,  we  shall  produce  the  cucumbers 
where  we  shall  have  the  benefits  of  cheap  tropical  heat  and 
light,  and  shall  extract  their  desirable  qualities  at  a  point  in 
the  northern  latitudes  where  they  will  be  greatly  needed 
during  ten  months  of  the  year. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  our  enterprise,  from  the  very 
start,  will  give  employment  to  a  large  number  of  laborers, 
both  skilled  and  unskilled,  in  the  erection  of  our  buildings 
and  the  cultivation  of  our  land.  Thousands  of  brick-makers, 
stone-masons,  carpenters,  many  saw-mills,  plow  factories, 
and  hardware  manufactories,  will  feel  the  stimulus  created 
by  our  great  enterprise. 

The  $150,000,000  we  shall  spend  on  our  plant,  will  be 
so  much  added  to  the  national  wealth,  and  will  contribute 
largely  to  the  national  prosperity.  When  we  shall  be  able 
to  start  our  factories,  the  transportation  of  the  thousands  of 
train-loads  and  ship-loads  of  cucumbers  from  Texas  to  St. 
Paul,  will  give  employment  to  several  thousand  men.  Our 
entire  pay-rolls  will,  as  we  estimate,  contain  the  names  of 
200,000  employe's,  and  our  monthly  disbursements  of 
wages  will  amount  to  about  $5,000,000. 

Besides  all  this,  our  industry  will  soon  give  such  a  stimulus 
to  activities  of  all  other  kinds,  that  the  population  of  St. 
Paul  will  soon  reach  1,000,000,  which  urban  population 
will  afford  a  home  market  for  all  the  wheat  which  the  farms 
of  Minnesota  can  produce  and  the  mills  of  Minneapolis 
grind.  This  will  save  the  ruinous  waste  of  transportation 
to  the  Liverpool  market.  You  will  thus  see  that  our  indus- 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  259 

try  is  one  of  large  proportions  and  may  justly  ask  recog- 
nition from  the  Government. 

But  if  this  were  the  whole  truth,  there  would  be  no  oc- 
casion that  we  should  appear  before  you.  We  are  subjected 
to  the  powerful  competition  of  a  foreign  rival,  who  inun- 
dates this  country  with  his  cheap  light  and  heat,  and  threat- 
ens to  render  our  products  nearly  valueless,  and  thus  to 
prostrate  our  infant  industry  by  his  intolerable  rivalry.  This 
competitor  is  the  sun.  Without  legislative  help,  we  shall 
be  utterly  ruined.  His  products  are  poured  into  America 
in  such  floods  that  the  whole  land  is  inundated  by  his  light 
and  warmed  by  his  heat.  But  what  is  still  worse,  is  the  fact 
that  this  foreign  light  and  heat  are  so  cheap  as  to  be  per- 
fectly paralyzing  to  our  enterprise.  In  truth,  these  products 
of  the  sun  are  a  pure  gratuity  to  the  American  people. 
He  has  such  hostile  designs  against  us,  that  cheapness  has 
been  "put  to  the  limit." 

But,  gentlemen,  this  furnishes  the  ground  for  our  strongest 
argument.  You  wisely  protect  steel  rails  when  one  third  of 
the  price  is  a  gratuity  from  England  to  our  people,  and  you 
tell  them  they  shall  not  receive  the  gift.  You  wisely  forbid 
foreign  sugar,  in  which  50  per  cent  is  a  gratuity  which  the 
sun  has  conferred  upon  Cuba.  You  forbid  tea,  in  which 
94  per  cent  is  a  gratuity  which  the  sun  confers  upon  China. 
You  forbid  coffee,  in  which  99  per  cent  is  a  gratuity  con- 
ferred by  the  sun  upon  Brazil.  You  are  not  logical  if  you 
stop  short  of  the  limit,  and  refuse  to  forbid  the  entrance  of 
this  foreign  light  and  heat  when  100  per  cent  of  it  is  a 
gratuity  from  the  sun. 

If  you  check  the  importation  of  woollen  fabrics,  iron 
products,  and  other  foreign  manufactures  because  they  are 
to  some  extent  in  the  nature  of  a  gratuitous  gift,  and,  in 
fact,  in  the  very  proportion  as  their  price  approaches  zero, 
how  inconsistent  it  would  be  to  permit  the  sun  to  flood  and 


26O  fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

inundate  the  land  with  his  products,  whose  price  during  the 
whole  day  and  for  every  day  is  not  only  near  zero,  but  at 
zero  !  According  to  our  system  of  political  economy,  the 
less  the  amount  of  the  foreign  gratuity  the  more  able  are 
our  domestic  industries  to  take  care  of  themselves ;  and  the 
greater  the  gratuity,  the  more  is  there  a  necessity  for  gov- 
ernment aid. 

It  is  true  that  this  odious  foreign  rival  does  not  at  all 
times  harass  us  with  his  presence.  During  each  night  we 
might  hope  that  there  would  be  a  demand  for  our  products. 
But  at  these  times  we  are  obliged  to  encounter  other  com- 
petitors, such  as  gas  companies,  the  Standard  Oil  Company, 
and  that  latest  and  most  hateful  of  devices,  the  electric 
light.  Nay,  mother  earth  herself  is  in  league  against  us. 
She  belches  forth  her  natural  gas,  millions  of  cubic  feet, 
day  and  night.  You  will  not  think  it  strange  that  we  should 
demand  from  you  and  from  Congress  that  protection  which 
is  the  birthright  of  every  American  citizen. 

In  the  matter  of  heat,  we  have  a  rival  only  less  powerful 
than  the  sun  in  coal  mines,  forests,  and  peat-beds.  From 
present  indications  it  appears  that  our  highly  valuable  in- 
dustry will  be  reduced  to  complete  stagnation  before  it  has 
been  six  months  in  operation.  Our  petition,  therefore,  is 
that  you  will  enact  that  a  tax  of  $20  be  placed  upon  every 
window  kept  without  blinds,  that  you  rebuke  the  earth  for 
her  spontaneous  outbursts,  and  that  you  proclaim  a  solemn 
interdict  against  the  sun,  as  King  Canute,  of  England,  did 
against  the  tide  of  the  ocean. 

Further,  we  demand  that  in  arranging  the  schedule  of 
duties  in  the  new  Bill  for  the  Promotion  of  Universal 
Wealth,  that  you  insert  a  provision  for  a  tax  of  1500  per 
cent  ad  valorem  and  $8,000  specific  upon  the  products  of 
all  gas  companies,  oil  companies,  electric-light  companies, 
coal  mines,  and  peat-beds,  to  the  end  that  our  promising 


SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  26 1 

industry  may  feel  the  fostering  hand  of  legislation.  With 
all  seriousness  we  put  to  you  this  alternative :  Will  you 
prefer  that  the  nation  shall  have  its  industries  prostrated  by 
a  gratuitous  production  and  consumption  of  light  and  heat ; 
or  will  you  choose  that  it  shall  feel  in  all  its  avenues  of 
activity  the  stimulus  of  laborious  production? 

Several  other  gentlemen  were  present  and  desired  an 
audience.  The  Committee  is  informed  that  one  of  the 
parties  desires  a  little  temporary  encouragement  for  his  new 
industry  of  breeding  seals  on  the  Staked  Plain  in  New 
Mexico.  Another  would  present  a  plea  for  a  tax  on  the 
pauper  ostrich  feathers  from  the  'Sahara  Desert,  in  order 
to  foster  his  ostrich  farm  in  the  Everglades  of  Florida. 
Another  would  ask  for  protection  from  Cuban  fruits  in 
aid  of  his  orange  groves  on  the  inexhaustible  prairies  of 
Dakota.  Another  would  ask  aid  in  his  infant  enterprise  in 
Alaska — the  manufacture  of  nectar  by  the  distillation  of 
the  Aurora  Borealis. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Audiphil  the  Committee  adjourned 
to  meet  at  the  usual  hour  on  February  25th  to  hear  the 
additional  pleas. 

SWING  A.  GAVEL,  Chairman. 
A.  STEELE  PENN,  Secretary. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE  MORAL  ASPECTS   OF  THE  ISSUE. 

jjCONOMIC  considerations  are  not  the  only  ones 
involved  in  the  controversy  between  protec- 
tionists and  free-traders.  The  question  has  a 
strong  moral  complexion. 
Forty  years  ago,  in  England,  John  Bright  and  Richard 
Cobden  showed  that  protection  was  not  only  a  financial 
blight,  but  also  a  moral  iniquity.  For  years  their  words 
were  unheard ;  but  when  the  Irish  famine  precipitated  the 
issue  upon  Parliament,  the  conscience  of  the  nation  rose  to 
the  occasion  and  demanded  the  abolition  of  the  Corn  Laws 
and  the  entire  protective  system.  The  moral  discernment 
of  men  is  usually  clearer  than  their  economic.  An  outrage 
against  virtue  or  justice  stirs  the  blood  and  rouses  indigna- 
tion; but  men  submit  tamely  to  an  erroneous  financial 
policy,  "  more  disposed  to  suffer  while  evils  are  sufferable, 
than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which 
they  are  accustomed."  When  in  1863  Mr.  Bright  pleaded 
against  English  intervention  in  American  affairs  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  be  wicked,  selfish,  and  unjust,  he  car- 
ried the  conscience  of  England  with  him.  When  Glad- 
stone opposed  the  foreign  policy  of  Beaconsfield  on  moral 
grounds,  as  unchristian  and  dishonorable,  his  sentiments 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  263 

swept  England  like  a  cyclone.  So  will  it  be  in  America. 
When  our  people  shall  see  with  clearness  that  protection  is 
an  evil  morally  as  well  as  financially,  the  system  will  totter 
to  its  fall. 

That  it  can  not  be  defended  on  moral  grounds,  follows 
from  much  that  has  been  said  in  the  preceding  pages.  In 
fact,  many  of  the  arguments  against  protection  derive  their 
chief  force  from  the  fact  that  it  violates  the  ethical  principle 
implanted  in  every  breast.  All  people  see  that  no  man's 
rights  can  be  based  on  another  man's  injury.  If  the  indict- 
ment of  protection  in  the  preceding  pages  is  a  good  one, 
it  is  impossible  to  make  the  ethics  of  the  system  harmonize 
with  that  correct  adage  of  the  fathers,  "  equal  and  exact 
justice  to  all,  but  special  privileges  to  none."  It  promises 
large  rewards  to  labor,  which  it  has  never  been  able  to  con- 
fer. It  designedly  compels  one  set  of  men  to  contribute  of 
their  earnings  for  the  benefit  of  another  class.  It  con- 
fessedly levies  upon  the  strongest  industries  to  coddle  the 
weak  and  sickly.  It  exacts  tribute  from  the  masses  for  the 
benefit  of  a  few.  If  one  industry  is  unprofitable,  protection 
cancels  its  losses  by  forced  contributions  upon  those  of 
sturdier  growth.  If  it  is  profitable,  the  encouragement  re- 
ceived becomes  an  unnecessary  bounty,  a  subsidy,  a  gra- 
tuity. If,  as  protectionists  assert,  their  system  benefits  an 
unprotected  industry  as  much  as  it  taxes  it,  then  protection 
becomes  an  absurdity,  since  the  benefits  and  the  burdens 
resolve  themselves  into  mutual  cancellations,  and  we  are 
supporting  an  expensive  system  with  zero  for  a  result.  If 
it  be  not  true,  and  if  benefits  and  burdens  are  not  equally 
distributed,  we  are  supporting  a  system  which  we  know  to 
be  partial  and  unjust.  It  puts  a  premium  upon  false  valu- 
ation of  goods  when  passing  the  custom-house.  It  encour- 
ages the  breaking  of  the  law,  especially  against  smuggling. 
Though  the  system  is  not  answerable  for  all  dishonesty,  it 


264  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

is  fair  to  say  that  it  gives  great  encouragement  to  adulter- 
ation and  other  dishonest  features  in  manufactures.  Its 
ethics  resolves  itself  into  the  idea  that  our  consuming  mil- 
lions are  the  proper  objects  to  be  plundered,  if  it  can  be 
done  under  the  forms  and  sanction  of  the  law.  It  has  be- 
come one  of  the  tricks  of  statecraft  to  make  a  levy  upon 
the  innocent  and  the  unsuspecting  without  their  knowledge, 
and  then  divide  it  among  the  cunning  and  the  audacious. 
No  good  man  will  take  pleasure  in  the  growth  of  great  for- 
tunes, if  they  result  from  the  legal  oppression  of  the  poor. 
Wealth  will  prove  a  curse  instead  of  a  blessing,  if  it  should 
deepen  the  chasm  which  already  separates  capital  and  labor, 
or  if  it  should  make  the  rich  richer,  and  the  poor  poorer. 

The  basis  of  protection  is  selfishness.  It  says  in  effect, 
"  Let  every  nation  look  out  for  itself,  and  may  ruin  take  the 
rearmost."  It  confesses  that  its  purpose  is  to  benefit  our- 
selves by  injuring  every  other  people.  If  its  tenets  are  true, 
its  success  must  inflict  unmerited  disaster  upon  foreign  na- 
tions. This,  of  itself,  removes  the  doctrine  from  the  realm 
of  broad  and  liberal  principles,  and  should  be  sufficient  to 
condemn  it  in  the  minds  of  all  lovers  of  their  race. 

To  particularize :  In  order  to  make  the  silk  industry 
flourish  in  our  country  we  do  all  that  legislation  can  do  to 
destroy  the  silk  factories  of  France,  and  to  throw  the 
French  operatives  out  of  employment,  by  cutting  off  all 
we  can  of  their  foreign  market.  After  having  crippled  this 
foreign  industry  for  twenty  years  and  meantime  mulcted 
ourselves  many  millions,  we  succeed  in  acclimating  the  silk 
industry,  at  least  so  far  as  to  make  it  exist  in*  New  Jersey 
and  Connecticut.  We  have  the  further  satisfaction  of  see- 
ing a  few  starved  Frenchmen,  whom  our  folly  has  driven  out 
of  Lyons,  come  across  in  the  steerage  to  work  in  our  silk 
mills  at  Paterson.  Forthwith  we  congratulate  ourselves 
that  we  no  longer  pay  tribute  to  foreigners.  Economic 


fS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  26$ 

science  condemns  such  a  system  as  unwise :  humanity 
condemns  it  as  cruel  and  selfish.  Even  the  Samaritan  was 
neighbor  to  him  who  fell  among  the  thieves ;  and  foreigners 
are  as  much  our  fellow-men  as  our  countrymen.  That 
must  be  either  a  very  blind  or  else  a  very  wicked  teaching 
which  implies  that  we  have  no  moral  obligations  to  fellow- 
beings  on  other  continents.  No  good  man  can  take  de- 
light in  suffering,  or  look  with  the  indifference  of  a  Stoic 
upon  poverty  or  disaster  in  any  part  of  the  world. 

An  impression  prevails  widely  in  Europe  that  our  rates 
of  duty  on  most  articles  produced  there  are  so  high  as  to 
be  oppressive,  and  to  violate  that  comity  which  should  char- 
acterize commercial  intercourse  between  friendly  nations. 
The  opinion  is  deepening  there  that  we  have  no  moral 
right  to  lay  such  duties  as  will  drive  Europe  from  our  mar- 
kets. The  determination,  therefore,  is  taking  form  on  that 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  to  evade,  nullify,  and  defeat  our  pur- 
pose. Thus  protection  sets  each  nation  against  all  the 
others  in  an  attitude  of  commercial  hostility,  if  not  of  armed 
conflict. 

Protection  is  the  father  of  international  retaliation.  We 
discriminate  against  European  products  :  the  nations  there 
strike  back  by  excluding  our  exports.  Like  peevish  chil- 
dren, we  play  across  the  Atlantic  the  narrow  and  short- 
sighted game  of  tit-for-tat.  The  French  legislate  against 
our  cheap  bread ;  and  we  legislate  against  their  cheap  silks 
and  laces.  The  Germans  forbid  the  entrance  of  our  cheap 
meats ;  and  we  forbid  their  cheap  cloths.  We  reject  the 
products  peculiar  to  Great  Britain,  though  that  island  buys 
of  our  cereals  five  times  as  much  as  all  New  England. 
With  one  breath  we  demand  the  destruction  of  the  Chinese 
walls  erected  by  European  parliaments,  while,  with  the 
next,  we  advocate  the  placing  of  another  layer  of  stone  upon 
the  one  constructed  by  our  own  Congress.  Thus  under 


266  SS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

the  teachings  of  the  abominable  gospel  of  ill-will  and  retali- 
ation, the  nations  go  on  to  their  common  injury. 

Was  the  world  built  upon  a  fallacy  ?  Is  the  constitution 
of  Nature  based  upon  a  mistake  ?  Does  commercial  inter- 
course have  no  settled  principles,  and  no  better  lamp  to 
guide  it  than  the  dicta  of  empiricism?  No.  Conflicts 
arise  because  men  war  against  Nature.  International  retali- 
ations exist  because  the  commercial  policies  of  nations  are 
not  in  harmony  with  the  inexorable  trend  of  the  universe. 
Some  day  it  will  be  seen  that  we  are  citizens  of  the  world 
as  well  as  citizens  of  a  republic ;  that  even  the  love  of 
country  is  not  so  large  a  grace  as  the  love  of  mankind  ;  that 
the  patriot  is  a  man  of  smaller  stature  and  girth  than  the 
cosmopolitan  ;  that  all  policies  are  unwise  and  hateful  which 
war  against  the  blessed  religion  of  good-will  and  fraternity. 
The  prevalence  of  such  conceptions  will  teach  the  race  the 
lesson  of  interdependence,  will  bind  all  nations  into  a  unity 
and  harmony  of  interests,  and  open  the  door  for  the  glories 
of  that  millennium, 

"Till  the  war-drum  throbb'd  no  longer, 

And  the  battle-flags  were  furl'd 
In  the  Parliament  of  man, 

The  Federation  of  the  world." 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

CONCLUSION.  —  THE   OUTCOME. 

O  use  the  vernacular  of  the  courts,  "  Here  we 
rest  our  cause."  The  preceding  is  not  the 
whole  truth.  Much  more  might  be  said  which 
would  be  equally  as  pertinent  as  anything  that 
has  gone  before.  Like  every  other  good  cause,  the  argu- 
mentative defence  of  freedom  of  trade  is  really  stronger 
than  any  man  has  ever  put  into  words. 

What  is  to  be  the  outcome  ?  Is  so-called  protection  to 
be  our  final  policy?  Is  restriction  and  embarrassment  of 
trade  to  be  the  mature  fruit  of  our  civilization  ?  Is  it  the 
ultimate  good  ?  A  century  ago  the  nose  of  the  protective 
camel  was  modestly  thrust  into  our  national  tent.  But  for 
the  last  twenty-five  years  he  has  been  bodily  within,  a 
welcome  guest ;  and  it  has  really  become  a  vital  question, 
and  is  soon  apparently  to  be  the  dominant  one,  whether 
he  shall  be  allowed  to  become  a  permanent  tenant. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  used  to  define  agitation  as  "  the  marshal- 
ling of  the  conscience  of  a  nation  to  mould  its  laws." 
With  us  to-day  there  is  a  public  ferment.  For  the  first 
time  in  a  generation,  the  public  attention  is  directed  to 
the  economical  relation  of  taxation  and  industry.  A  busy 
people  have  too  far  trusted  affairs  to  Congress,  and  have 
yielded  a  too  unquestioning  obedience  to  the  laws.  But 


268  SS   PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

now  there  is  a  widespread  conviction  that  there  is  a  radical 
wrong  somewhere.  It  is  even  seen  by  a  great  and  con- 
trolling political  party  assembled  in  national  convention, 
that  "the  inequalities  of  the  tariff"  call  for  adjustment. 
The  people  see  that  we  are  cutting  ourselves  off  from  the 
good  products  and  the  profitable  trade  of  other  nations, 
both  in  importables  and  exportables ;  that  the  burdens  of 
taxation  are  unequal  and  in  many  cases  unjust;  that  we 
have  made  greater  progress  as  a  people  in  eras  of  low 
tariff,  than  we  have  in  those  of  high ;  and  that  we  are  pros- 
perous to-day  only  because  the  nation  which  possesses  in- 
dustry, frugality,  virtue,  and  intelligence  can  not  long  remain 
poor ;  as  the  people  who  lack  these  qualities  can  not  long 
remain  rich.  Our  laboring  population  have  witnessed  fall- 
ing wages  and  diminishing  employment  with  a  descending 
scale  of  comforts ;  they  have  been  mulcted  to  sustain  men- 
dicant industries,  which  throng  the  lobbies  of  Congress, 
as  beggars  swarmed  in  "  the  gate  of  the  Temple  which  is 
called  Beautiful."  They  see  that  there  has  been  a  rapid 
increase  in  the  number  of  our  millionnaires  and  paupers, 
till  between  the  classes  of  society  there  stretches  a  chasm 
as  impassable  as  that  gulf  which  separated  Dives  in  hell 
and  Lazarus  in  Abraham's  bosom.  Our  protected  classes 
themselves  are  seeing  that  they  are  pressed  by  the  keenest 
competition  in  the  home  market,  while  they  are  utterly 
unable  even  to  enter,  much  less  control,  the  foreign  one ; 
that  loaded  down  with  antecedent  taxes  on  material,  they 
are  forced  into  diminished  production  and  lower  profits, 
and  that  nearly  all  those  industries  upon  which  legislation 
has  conferred  the  largest  favors,  are  in  a  condition  of 
depression,  and  often  of  panic  and  threatened  collapse. 
When  it  shall  be  clearly  seen,  as  it  will  be,  that  our  fiscal 
system  is  chiefly  responsible  for  this  condition  of  affairs, 
the  end  of  protection  can  not  be  distant. 


IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  269 

Protection  is  an  agreeable  word.  It  suggests  safety.  It 
appeals  strongly  to  the  unthinking.  It  was  once  the  win- 
ning word.  It  is  so  no  longer.  When  public  scrutiny  is 
once  seriously  directed  to  it,  it  will  go  down  like  the  baffled 
Sphinx,  or  fall  off  from  the  body  politic  like  the  Old  Man 
of  the  Sea  in  the  Arabian  Nights.  If  its  propagandists 
were  right  in  their  reasonings,  the  system  would  indeed 
accomplish  all  that  its  honest  advocates  could  desire.  If  it 
could  obtain  revenue  and  yet  exclude  imports ;  if  it  could 
build  up  some  industries  without  pulling  down  others;  if 
it  could  so  aid  a  needy  industry  that  it  would  some  time 
sustain  itself  without  government  charity;  if  it  could  in- 
crease the  price  of  domestic  products,  without  increasing 
the  cost  of  production ;  if  it  could  enable  men  to  pay  high 
wages  in  what  they  confess  to  be  a  losing  business ;  if  it 
could  please  everybody  while  it  continued  to  benefit  a  few 
at  the  expense  of  the  masses,  —  then  protection  would  have 
prospects  of  long  life.  But  in  mechanism  every  machine  will 
fail  that  is  not  constructed  in  harmony  with  Nature.  So  all 
the  financial  devices  of  man  must  end  in  disaster,  if  out  of 
parallelism  with  the  divine  unity  of  the  creation.  Being  an 
attempt  to  repeal  or  to  counteract  natural  laws,  protection 
has  within  itself  the  growing  germs  of  death.  Statesmen 
have  not  been  greatly  successful  in  their  attempts  to  amend 
the  laws  or  deflect  the  trend  of  the  universe. 

Protection  becomes  more  and  more  harmful  each  year. 
If  as  a  nation  we  practised  isolation,  like  the  Chinese,  if 
we  were  non-progressive,  like  the  Turks,  it  could  not  be 
so  disastrous  to  us.  But  the  more  the  inventive  genius  of 
man  opens  the  way  for  international  intercourse,  the  more 
does  protection  become  a  harmful  anomaly  and  contra- 
diction. Every  year  the  increasing  means  of  communica- 
tion welds  the  nations  together  in  mutual  dependence. 
The  telegraph,  like  Puck,  the  fairy  servant  of  Oberon,  puts 


27O  IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT? 

a  girdle  around  the  earth  in  forty  minutes.  The  cotton 
manufacturer  of  Manchester  telegraphs  to  Mobile  both  his 
orders  for  a  thousand  bales  of  cotton  and  the  money  to 
pay  for  them.  "  France  orders  by  telegraph  millions  of 
cocoons  from  China,  and  ships  them  from  Canton  by  rail- 
way across  this  continent  to  Lyons."  With  every  step  of 
progress  the  more  impossible  does  it  become  to  shield  a 
nation  against  competition,  and  the  greater  would  be  the 
loss  if  such  a  thing  could  be  done.  Thus  does  protection, 
with  real  burdens  and  unsubstantial  benefits,  plant  itself 
squarely  in  the  path  of  progress,  and  become  more  calam- 
itous as  we  approach  an  ideal  civilization.  The  Greek 
philosophers  amused  themselves  with  ellipses,  parabolas,  and 
hyperbolas  j  but  Kepler  and  Newton  showed  the  utility  of 
these  curves  in  the  celestial  mechanism.  So,  Plato  specu- 
lated about  the  Ideal  Republic ;  but  we,  far  west  of  Atlantis, 
are  trying  to  work  it  out  into  realization.  Our  theory  of 
taxation  is  not  among  the  minor  things  which  stand  as  a 
barrier  in  our  path.  It  no  more  resembles  an  ideal  fiscal 
system  than  the  schoolboy's  snow-man  resembles  the  Apollo 
Belvidere,  or  a  five-cent  chromo  the  Transfiguration  of 
Raphael.  So  long  as  we  continue  narrowly  to  legislate  in 
the  interests  of  a  few,  we  never  can  realize  that  lofty  con- 
ception of  Lincoln  at  Gettysburg,  —  "  government  of  the 
people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people." 

When  will  reform  come  ?  In  completing  his  "  Wealth 
of  Nations,"  Adam  Smith  expressed  the  opinion  that  free- 
dom of  trade  could  no  more  prevail  in  England  than 
Utopia  could  be  set  up  there,  because  of  the  opposition 
of  strong  vested  interests.  He  was  mistaken.  Revenue 
reform  will  come  to  us  also,  and  probably  much  sooner 
than  most  people  would  predict.  "  The  people  of  the 
United  States  in  respect  to  most  public  matters  attend  but 
one  school,  and  that  is  the  school  of  experience.  This 


IS  PROTECTION  A  BENEFIT?  2/1 

school  is  now  open.  Instruction  has  begun,  and  heavy 
penalties  for  failure  to  learn  are  being  inflicted."  We  are 
slowly  learning  that  such  a  development  as  we  believe  to 
be  our  destiny  is  utterly  incompatible  with  a  high  tariff 
shaped  for  protective  purposes.  The  log-rolling  of  interests 
and  the  clamors  of  "  vested  rights  "  are  losing  their  power, 
and  they  will  probably  not  be  able  much  longer  either  to 
coerce  or  to  mystify  public  sentiment  into  the  enactment 
of  laws  disastrous  to  men  and  the  nation. 

Protection  is  at  war  with  progress.  The  very  forces  of 
Nature  are  in  league  with  the  reform.  "  The  stars  in  their 
courses  fought  against  Sisera ;  "  so  the  instincts  of  human 
nature  and  the  unrepealable  laws  of  wealth  and  trade  fight 
against  protection.  To  use  an  epigram  of  Emerson,  free- 
traders "  have  hitched  their  wagon  to  a  star."  Every  great 
invention,  every  strait  tunnelled,  every  canal  which  cuts  an 
isthmus,  every  newspaper  filled  with  the  events  of  the  day, 
every  college  and  public  school,  every  sermon  which  asserts 
the  fraternity  of  men  and  the  fatherhood  of  God,  —  all 
these  are  bringing  reform  nearer.  Restriction  belongs  to 
the  past ;  and  it  is  as  much  out  of  harmony  with  the  im- 
proved methods  of  to-day,  as  the  sickle  and  the  flail  are 
in  husbandry,  the  pillion  in  travel,  or  the  foot-runner  in 
conveying  intelligence.  The  spirit  of  freedom  protests 
against  it,  as  it  did  against  the  Stamp  Act  and  the  divine 
right  of  kings ;  as  it  did  against  religious  intolerance  and 
the  Inquisition ;  as  it  did  against  a  muzzled  press  before 
the  days  of  John  Peter  Zenger;  as  it  did  against  negro 
slavery  before  Lincoln  struck  off  the  shackles  by  the  Great 
Proclamation.  "  The  manifest  destiny  "  of  the  United  States 
is  an  unrestricted  trade  with  all  the  world.  Our  country 
is  to-day  far  grander  in  most  respects  than  Plato  dreamed 
of  in  his  Republic,  or  More  imagined  in  his  Utopia ;  but  it 
will  never  attain  its  ideal  development  till  industrial  eman- 


2/2  IS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT? 

cipation  shall  follow  the  servile  emancipation  of  1863,  and 
the  political  emancipation  of  1776. 

Neither  men  nor  parties  can  successfully  stand  in  the 
breach.  The  flood  of  events  is  already  sweeping  aside  all 
opposing  forces.  In  1860  one  great  and  dominant  party 
went  into  political  exile  because  it  opposed  the  freedom  of 
man  :  in  1884  another  party  of  great  deeds  and  honorable 
history  went  into  the  baptism  of  defeat  because  it  opposed 
freedom  of  trade.  Thus  were  the  public  intelligence  and 
conscience  emphasizing  their  verdict  against  the  policies  of 
statecraft. 

Freedom  is  the  vital  breath  of  real  prosperity.  A  free 
ballot  makes  strong  and  happy  States.  Free  speech  makes 
intelligent  and  patriotic  citizens.  Freedom  in  worship 
makes  zealous  and  spiritual  churches.  Freedom  in  trade 
will  make  wealthy  and  prosperous  nations.  "  Free  trade  is 
only  one  of  the  many  forms  of  unrestricted  human  action 
which  poets,  philosophers,  and  the  common  people  wor- 
ship under  the  name  of  liberty."  That  in  all  the  centuries 
freedom  has  been  slain  under  the  plea  of  public  advantage 
or  necessity,  has  been  a  sad  tragedy  of  the  ages. 

The  great  struggles  of  history  have  been  to  secure  larger 
liberty.  The  battle  for  commercial  freedom  in  the  United 
States  remains  to  be  fought.  The  vanguard  waging  this 
contest  is  now  becoming  a  mighty  host.  Agitation  stirs 
and  educates  the  age.  In  the  march  of  public  opinion  back- 
ward steps  are  seldom  taken.  An  abuse  once  corrected 
disappears  from  history.  When  favoring  conditions  con- 
spire, economic  and  moral  reforms  spring  forth  into  vitality, 
like  a  grain  of  wheat  which  has  slept  for  three  thousand 
years  in  the  linen  shroud  of  a  mummy.  Right  comes 
forth  because  of  the  very  excess  of  wrong,  and  the  public 
interest,  when  once  aroused,  does  not  easily  relapse  into 
apathy. 


fS  PROTECTION  A   BENEFIT?  273 

Dominant  political  parties  may  not  indeed  lend  their 
approval  to  reform,  because  parties  and  sects  laden  with 
the  burden  of  securing  their  own  success  can  not  afford  to 
risk  progressive  ideas.  The  rancorous  partisan  is  the  typi- 
cal coward  of  the  age.  The  man  who  deliberately  closes 
his  eyes  to  the  necessity  of  industrial  emancipation,  and 
who,  seeing  the  wrong  of  commercial  thraldom,  does  not 
resent  this  outrage  upon  popular  rights,  is  a  fit  subject  for 
an  Oriental  despot.  The  man  who  cowers  under  the  lash 
of  party  and  dare  not  raise  his  voice  or  drop  his  ballot  in 
protest  against  a  public  wrong,  is  unworthy  the  exercise  of 
citizenship  in  the  Great  Republic.  But  the  agitators  and 
the  independent  citizens  who  stand  on  the  solid  ground  of 
conviction,  the  slaves  of  no  party,  wedded  to  no  candidate, 
with  no  object  but  truth  and  the  betterment  of  men,  can 
open  the  issue  to  public  gaze  and  let  the  light  shine  in. 

Reforms  usually  pass  through  the  three  stages  of  ridicule, 
argument,  and  adoption.  A  truth  is  suspected ;  it  is  an- 
nounced ;  it  is  embraced  by  a  few ;  it  is  advocated  by  a 
minority ;  the  minority  grows  into  a  majority ;  the  majority 
pushes  it  forward  to  adoption.  Truth  is  a  constantly  rising 
tide.  It  is  inherently  mighty.  It  does  not  go  with  bowed 
head  and  apologetic  mien,  but  steps  like  a  conquering 
Caesar  on  the  day  of  his  triumph.  It  invites  criticism  and 
challenges  contradiction.  Though  it  may  be  in  temporary 
eclipse,  all  the  powers  of  the  universe  are  pledged  to  its 
support  and  final  supremacy. 

Jefferson  was  right  in  saying  that  error  is  not  finally  dan- 
gerous, if  truth  be  left  unfettered  to  combat  it.  The  popu- 
lar conscience  is  the  Medea's  cauldron  which  brings  forth  all 
things  new.  In  that  red-hot  crucible  all  error,  though  ob- 
stinate and  honored  by  time,  is  finally  driven  into  vapor, 
and  the  pure  gold  of  right  and  truth  remains  to  men. 
With  entire  faith  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  all  right,  let  the 

18 


274 


7S  PROTECTION  A    BENEFIT? 


lovers  of  the  millions  continue  to  work  while  they  wait,  till 
the  rising  tide  of  public  intelligence  and  the  blessings  of 
that  Omnipotence  which  in  all  ages  has  so  visibly  energized 
every  noble  cause,  shall  cast  down  error  and  bring  the 
truth  to  victory. 


frp. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  731  042     8 


